Hunter Allen: Why Polarized training is not for you!

Another perspective from the old timer:

Sadly, his main argument is that it’s not fun. However fun is not an objective function. Yet it’s a very fitting end to the silly debate. Do whichever you enjoy the most!

Good ad for TR programming tho :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Making training fun is part of being a good coach or a good self-coach.
I’m progressing my Tuesday ISM Z2 rides into a similar length tempo ride at the moment and I can’t say one is any more fun than the other! Yeah you go a bit quicker but that’s annoying as I seem to need half a county to fit one in :rofl:

I feel like there’s a lot he could learn from last Thursdays Fast Talk podcast!

Having fun with your sessions or not has nothing to do with the training intensity distribution you’ve chosen.

1 Like

I’m such an idiot. Why do I still click on these things? :rofl:


Starting to run out of arguments, huh?

Personally, I like two hard sessions per week and the rest as slow gravel riding where I am out in nature and de-stressing from everyday-life.

Each to his or her own.


He’s not necessarily wrong. We’ve seen “it’s boring” comments with respect to the Easy Endurance rides, but also the nature of the Hard workouts within the TR POL plans specifically. They took a very literal application from the Seiler info, and those are relatively bland and basic workouts compared to the majority within the TR library.

It may be splitting hairs from Hunter, but I think there is some meat on the bones of his comment. I’ve seen people bail on these TR POL plans as a result, and I imagine that similarly simple workouts from any other system could have the same argument leveled against them.

Right or wrong, people will use any number of reasons to skip or deviate workouts, which will potentially derail a training plan if and when that happens. It’s even more applicable for inside workouts where some variation is often welcomed vs sustained levels, even it it’s merely to give some overall meaningless deltas when the training impact is non-existent.


I like how we’re now mixing all the terms, and all the zones, and all the things.

We can all be Pol if we only have two zones :man_shrugging:.

And as Hunter and Chad say, the biggest issue with “prescribing” polarized training is that riders lose engagement and fall off the wagon.

TR have been threading the needle on this for ages and copping flack constantly for people not reading the weekly tips (when they did exist).

1 Like

It’s not that I can’ understand why some will find a traditional approach more fun than a polarized. Especially those primarily riding indoor on the hometrainer.

I just think this part is nonsense:

(whether pyramidal and polarized is that different after all is another discussion)

1 Like

Both models, pyramidal and polarized are fine ways to do it. And both sacrifice fun. Take your pick!

If you’re going after lab-purity in your training, there is no room for unstructured rides. There is no joy.

I try to achieve some balance, but I know that the type of rides I enjoy doing do not intersect with rides where I am staring at my wattage.


The comment from Ken is priceless


To be fair, I agree with him. The most important thing in cycling training is consistency.

If I have no fun in my program (eg. having data to follow and records to break), I’d probably drop it pretty fast.

Doing a lot of low intensity indoor is kinda boring to me, and high intensity can break my will to continue if too frequent. I like to have some sweet spot in my schedule, because it’s not that hard and yet it gives me some fun (beating my overall 120 minutes max power for instance).

  • The tips still exist as of now. They were removed at one point when AT made stuff messy when they spoke of specific workouts aligned with the fixed plans of old. But they are back and present as shown on my current Plan Builder plan.


I think Ken ‘gets it’ more than Hunter :scream:

Although it’s logical that Hunter wouldn’t understand that LT1 isn’t tied to a percentage of FTP :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Otherwise he’d have made a model that works :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :bomb: :boom:


Admittedly, I have not read the article yet (working on it over lunch), but I agree that the statement from him is just bad, IMO.

Polarized is no fun indoors but doing long slow rides outside when the weather is nice outside…


I’m betting Ken is a play on the popular Ken M comments that has been around in comments sections on the internet for years


How can Ken get it more if he’s describing something different :man_shrugging: :rofl:

He’s not. Polarised is above and below LT1.
Hunter is saying polarised is above and below 75% ftp.

One is wrong.

I don’t know that Polarised is so clearly defined lol


Yeah and Hunter needs to check his model if he thinks an extra 30 watts will get you an extra 6 mph.

Here’s hunters reply to Ken. This is patently incorrect.

Although fair point :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :bomb::bomb::bomb::bomb::bomb::bomb::bomb:

1 Like