lol, you know, the reason bikes were invented. To more quickly get from point A to point B, versus walking.
3 Likes
I keep ending up back at point A…
I must be doing it wrong. I dream of my younger days (pre kids) where Point A to Point B rides were a real choice. Getting to that point again where I might be able to ride to where the family are traveling to. Not yet though.
5 Likes
Right, nearly always point A to B, then after a bit, back to A. Pro tip - the A to B rides are easier for empty nesters in the afternoon on weekends, when my wife can do some shopping 
3 Likes
Current exchange rates do make it expensive which is why I only use TR between November and March. I pay monthly but suspend my account between April and October since I prefer outdoor riding between these months anyway.I know it is recommended to use TR all year but needs must.
The only experimental plans I know of are the Polarized plans, which have been around 2? years, give or take, maybe less. I’m a research scientist for a living. I’ve got stuff I’ve been working on for that long that hasn’t been published yet because the studies aren’t complete. I think it’s a lot to expect them to have the findings pulled together in shareable form already, and by shareable I mean meeting the reasonably high standards I think they and others would expect. Sharing to the broad community like that, most people are going to want their work to be at a logical break point where that particular study is wrapped and fairly polished, especially when sharing that work with an audience that isn’t all researchers and may over-interpret unfinished work. I think getting to that point takes a lot more time than people who aren’t in research realize. No, this isn’t a formal research study, but I suspect TR still holds themselves to similarly high standards.
3 Likes
You may be right, but I really struggle with this. It’s a training plan, not brain surgery. How many years do people have to do 2x16 @x% before you know whether or not it’s effective?
Either people train consistently and get results from the plan or they don’t. In a recent podcast, Chad said you only get to criticize a plan if you’ve done it all the way through, and I couldn’t disagree more. If the majority of people who start a plan quit the plan or don’t religiously follow the planned workouts, I think that speaks volumes.
4 Likes
For starters, what metrics do you use to define effective? Do you just measure based on increased FTP (potentially problematic)? You also have to think about sample size because they probably have to throw out any people who didn’t follow the plans exactly. Those people might be interesting to look at and stratify in their own right, and maybe they’re analyzing them as well, which is probably way more complicated. Since we don’t know precisely what specific questions they were asking and what their true sample size is, it’s hard to know whether they’re effectively powered (statistically) to make the conclusions they want to make from the dataset they have. They may need a larger n. FWIW, I don’t do human studies. All of my work is in mice, which in some ways is easier but comes with its own reasons why things take longer than desired that don’t happen in human research. So while I don’t necessarily have a full appreciation for the nuances of human studies, I can absolutely appreciate science moving at a slower pace than anyone wants it to (researchers included) because it often does. Unforeseen complications or confounding factors come up frequently.
All that said, I get why people are frustrated and want to know. I’m just highlighting that, from a scientist’s perspective, I know these things take a while to be completed to a satisfactory point, so the pace here really isn’t surprising to me at all.
1 Like
Were all of the other plans on TR “experimental plans” for 2 years while the questions you ask were answered? If not, then why does this only apply to the Polarized ones? I understand you’re arguing that science is going to science, but I’m asking why it only applies to this specific set of plans and why all the other ones are considered effective and NOT experimental even though we know the majority of users do not follow the other plans to the letter and quit before completing all 3 phases.
3 Likes
I think that’s the biggest issue with comparing any plans, or coming out with “data” about the Pol plans. Same reason the study failed, getting people to do all the workouts (and not either add, or subtract, workouts) would be very difficult and have a large influence on whether you can see an effect.
2 Likes
Agreed, but again, why does this only apply to the Polarized plans?
1 Like
My opinion/guess would be it’s to do with Polarised being unproven for “time crunched” athletes and athletes asked for Pol because it’s in vogue right now.
1 Like
I think the obvious answer to that is that TR’s focus isn’t the Polarised plans - they only put them in to respond to that guy’s well publicised criticisms on youtube (whose name I forget) and the guys in TR have never really sounded that invested in them.
Indeed and that’s why they quite significantly changed the ramp rate in SSB etc when they brought in PLs (this has worked really well for me to be fair). Perhaps they will do similar with the POL plans when PL 2.0 eventually comes out 
1 Like
No not at all, I just manually adjust with alternates where needed. Mainly only affects my endurance type workouts as I do more of that outside. Although I can see why some people might think that’s not ideal, given AT claims to take the thought out of workout selection when in practice it doesn’t completely do that.
My “complaint” such as it is (don’t get me wrong, I still love TR and get great value from it) is only as above: the way it’s been presented. And I am always keen to use new stuff 
If you’re not following Dylan Johnson on YouTube, you’re missing out on a lot of valuable content. He does great 15 min overviews of the topics we all know and love.
7 Likes
Not sure this is true. At the beginning AT mostly played with Nx2min progression for VO2max intervals. But lately it has been also suggesting plan adaptations with different kinds of intervals (x4min, x8min). I guess there is some kind of compliancy and success/failure monitoring going on in background that will affect how workouts will be proposed. Gathering such data takes time, that’s why we may not see weekly/monthly exciting news on that front 
EDIT: looked up current default plan (personal for me), same for Z4 intervals, it has x20min intervals at 100% there.
1 Like
You guys get it. This is a really productive conversation and honestly a pleasure to read!! Thank you, all 
Compliance
When researching a topic such as Polarised trading which has a fairly narrow definition, compliance is critical to ensure we are answering the question, “Does Polarised Training make you faster?”
@Pbase, we are continuously evaluating the effectiveness of our other Training Plans, which could be described as Pyramidal Training. The promising results are the reason why TrainerRoad was created and has been successful at making you faster cyclists. Whenever we see data that might suggest changes, tweaks are made, put into an experimental phase, or released in the Beta app.
I agree that lack of compliance can give us valuable information but it does not answer the question; “does polarised training make you faster?”. To do so, we have to look at data from people who complied with the Training Plan.
So far the data has shown a significantly lower compliance rate. This information may be helpful to you as an individual. However, comparisons are difficult with small sample sizes. We’re still monitoring and anticipating increased data points that will help us get a clearer picture of how a “textbook” 80/20 plan works in real world conditions and what variations and adjustments need to be made to improve performance
TrainerRoad’s High Standards
As @svens says, this is not true. We will always be guided by science. We all have the same goal; to become faster cyclists. We are not tied to a specific principle. We are only tied to the goal of making you faster cyclists. We will evolve with science, but will not be led by what’s in vogue, as you point out, @mailman.
Exactly. We will share our findings responsibly, knowing the impact this can have on cyclists and the endurance community at large 
.
12 Likes
I see this differently. These plans have been available for a long time now. If people are not complying with the plan, I think it says that the TR Polarized plan is not achievable for the majority of people who start it and therefore it needs to be modified. There are plenty of people completing Polarized plans, they just aren’t completing the ones offered here. If the plan never changes because no one ever finishes it, at some point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I would think the learning is “the average user will never get faster if we make the plan so difficult they can’t finish it”, not “if people would just man up, we could get more data”.
4 Likes
This comes down to the definition of non-compliance being used
If one always adds significant volume to the plan but also completes the planned workouts with 100% compliance - how do you treat this?
Likewise, if someone fails to complete the planned workouts but does significant other training/riding - how do you treat this?
Not to say you’re wrong - but I don’t know if you can look at the data @SarahLaverty presented and conclude that the plan isn’t achievable. We’d need more information than she provided to assess the achievability of the plans
4 Likes
Great points and I would add the need to dig into the “why” behind non-compliance (by whatever measure TR is using).
We just don’t have enough info to make anything more than wild guesses here. Comparisons to other POL resources are equally ‘blind’ unless there is real info shared.
4 Likes
Fair enough. It just blows my mind that in almost 2 years the answer is still “we don’t have enough data”, so I am likely drawing conclusions that are not very informed.
4 Likes