Could not agree more. The science argument seems to be used selectively. Jonathan recently posted this and asked him for references (including the research underpinning the TR plans), no response so far.
I totally get the ‘why’ though…its a commercial thing.
TR have said numerous times that compliance with z2 indoor sessions is very low, and the last thing they want is users getting bored with the plans and leaving, so the TR version of gamification is loads of varied interval sessions - thats what people like to ride, and subscription services must keep the customer happy…but is that really the optimal plan long term…and does that matter if people get faster int he short term and feel good about TR ???
TR is a business and has to provide people with a product they want. Hopefully the AT2.0 and Plan Builder 2.0 will allow us to build a plan based on what we want and what we know to work for ourselves longer term.
Agree.
It’s fair to conclude that the final word has not been said whether polarized training is optimal for endurance athletes (just think about the recent Seiler/Burnley debate)
The Case For (and Against) Polarized Training - Outside Online
But if they applied the same level of scrutiny to their MV/HV plans as they did to polarized in their long podcast, I doubt they would find much if any evidence supporting 4-5 days of intensity per week.
“laughs in Z2”
I’ve been doing TR low volume plans for a few years now. I supplement the 3 workouts per week with zone 2 riding - this used to be commuting, but is now zwift riding and 1-2hr z2 rides after work because I work from home now.
Anyway, I find that the intensity of the TR workouts + my added z2 works nicely during sweetspot base 1 and 2. However, I’ve consistently gotten sick/fatigued/tired/unmotivated after a few weeks of the build and specialty phases. Since I don’t want to drop my z2 volume (I do about 8-12h per week total) I’ve found that 2 TR workouts during build and specialty suits me much better.
That’s good to know. I was thinking about doing low volume and just adding endurance rides inbetween the intense ones but decided not to because those manually added TR workouts don’t get picked up by adaptive training since they’re not part of the plan, or at least that’s what I’ve heard. I figure I can do mid or high volume and just skip a workout or do shorter workout alternates if need be. I’ve been told workout alternatives are picked up by AT so thinking this might be a good strategy. Your thoughts?
-
It depends. If you do actual inside TR workouts and complete them, the can drive PL changes, which will potentially alter the LV workouts on your plan. Any manually added workouts wlll not be adapted though.
-
Outside TR workouts can also drive PL & then AT.
-
Unstructured rides not paired in TR don’t do what the above ones do.
Yeah Chads covered it above really.
Im in a tricky position where i do addition (non TR) z2 rides and i sometimes swap a TR workout for a zwift race. Since the TR AI doesnt yet analyse these, im doing a lot of riding that the AI cant account for.
If all your riding is TR workouts then either doing low volume plus some additional TR z2 or mid volume with the occasional deleted workout would be fine, at least from an AI/progression level perspective.
Like any training, a lot of it boils down to trying stuff out and seeing what works.
What if I go into a plan-scheduled TR workout and select and complete an alternative, is that picked up by AT?
Or what if my plan gives me a day off and I schedule and complete a TR workout from the library, does AT pickup that one?
- Yes. The Alternate absolutely works as desired.
- Yes. It will potentially give you PL changes. That depends on the selected workout being higher than your current PL. But if it is, you will get a PL bump. That may drive AT to alter your plan, but it deoenda on how much your PL changes and how much progressive is already in place on your plan.