I think this is a pivotal question - is the problem the plan is not achievable physically or is it just a drain mentally?
I’ve toyed a couple of times with trying a polarized block, but then when I look into it, I don’t know how long I could do the HIT rides mentally.
I think people underestimate how hard the hard rides are in a polarized program and then just bail on it.
N=1, but I have been enjoying my MV POL Base. I have questioned some of the adaptations offered and ignored a few while making substitutions that made more sense to me. But I have been hitting the VO2 & Threshold consistently and the Endurance are fine. Right or wrong, I’ve added 30 min Z2 on the tail of the 1 hours VO2, and an easy Z2 on Wed, so I am putting in more Z2 not getting the hard zone split that TR assigns.
Known deviations with intended purpose, but I wonder if that counts as “non-compliance” vs people missing workouts or falling short in the hard stuff?
That and many other questions, like where is the dividing line TR sets for “non-compliance” are open ones in my mind. Is it the 90-95% within power targets and workouts that has been mentioned generally speaking about TR in the past, or something totally different?
I don’t expect TR to share that level of detail, so all we have is more unknowns than knowns around this. It could be that there are just too few people even trying the plans. I suspect that you’d need a large sample size to even have any reliability in the data, when we consider this is all uncontrolled with people randomly picking and completing (or not) the plans. That in mind, I bet a large sample size is needed to have any confidence in the data.
I agree with you, and I guess this is why I’ve been on a bit of a soapbox (right or wrong). I keep waiting for the plans to be modified or clarified and it just never seems to come. I know it’s hard to get people to try them when they’re not in plan builder and pretty much hidden, but I also think that telling everyone for several months “no one who starts this plan complies with it” isn’t exactly encouraging participation, which means less data, so it becomes an endless cycle. In the end, I expect these plans to become Pyramidal, as even Seiler says they do in the real world. I saw it as a possible solution for the golden castle in the sky of a Masters plan that I dream of since the SS plans always crushed me in the past.
And some people think CX is fun…just goes to show there are weirdos across all spectrums in life… 
It sounds like we all agree that this is a nuanced topic to investigate 
.
I understand all of the points made here, and I appreciate that you understand our take on this too. I will definitely pass all of these valid points on to the team.
Perhaps we need a Science of Getting Faster Podcast episode on Polarised Training to address the nuances being discussed here while we wait for more data points? 
nods head in firm agreement
Perhaps the first question to ask, what is the minimum time needed for a polarized plan and how many are actually putting in that volume?
Just my opinion here but if you’re only doing a few 60 min rides in “Zone 2” and do a couple workouts, there is no way you are actually putting in enough work to say “polarized plans” work or don’t.
That’s actually two questions:
What is the minimum time needed for a polarized plan?
How many are actually putting in that volume?
Looking at the TR Low Vol plans seems a good starting point, at least as far as they saw fit to offer for open consumption. The specifics of that plan will vary based upon each rider’s starting PL, so I won’t bother to link what I see as of now. But the basic format of 1 hard workout and 2 easy ones (60m+ & 90m+ as it varies through the plan) may be plenty for some riders?
The more common mention we see is based around 2x hard workouts and the rest easy. TR’s MV POL base has this with 2x hard (60m+) and 2x easy (90m to 120m+). This is what I am doing while also adding more Z2 (hence probably screwing it up ).
Main point here is that we need to more precisely define the conditions here. Much of this is mentioned with no real nuance that is quite necessary to do more than speculate.
This is assuming the “polarized” philosophy works the same whether you put in 5 hours a week or 30. I don’t think this is the case. Same for Zone 2 as well. Does a 30-60 min “Zone 2” ride for the unfit see the same benefits of a 2-5 hour ride of the trained athlete? I don’t think that is the case either.
I have more questions than answers here and offered my thoughts to try and shed light on the greater nuance that lies here than the apparent certainty offered by some in this area.
Or so dull that people* who start it can’t face finishing it.
*not me … I was going to do it next year but the complete absence of lactate clearance work put me off.
That’s really interesting, thanks for sharing.
You’re not the only one.
I’ve done various levels of the TR polarized plans, but certainly not with 100% compliance.
The recent blocks I’ve been doing I have added additional Z2 time as well as a sweet spot workout after everything else is completed on Sunday, if I have the energy left (about 50% of the time). Below is a picture of last week, which is fairly typical for what I’ve been doing
In general, and this is not specific for the TR polarized plans, I respond much better to only two, and sometimes three, days of intensity a week. As such - the thing I like most about the TR polarized plans is that I am always looking forward to my next hard workout. I wake up with energy on those days and have not had issues completing them.
Is this strictly polarized? Absolutely not. Am I complying with the TR plans? Absolutely not. Are they closer to what I respond to as an athlete than the other TR plans? Absolutely.
Hard to say whether its the plans that are more effective, or if its simply the lower frequency of intensity and that just about any plan with this overall structure would better suit me.
Thanks for sharing!
Is that 16.5 hrs on the trainer?? 
I think I would probably respond well to that as well to be fair, as I respond well to volume, but even for me (who spends more time on the turbo than almost anyone I know IRL) that’s absolutely loads.
Looks fairly close to Traditional Base to me, but with a few VO2 intervals thrown in? Certainly in concept.
The baseline for the week was Polarized Base (6 week) mid volume. That gave me:
Tuesday Costilla (VO2)
Wednesday Sandy Bay (Endurance)
Thursday off (added Fletcher)
Friday Balaitus (threshold)
Saturday off (added Gigante)
Sunday Polar Bear -3 (endurance) to which I added Eclipse -2
Obviously based on the screen caps I also added a decent amount of endurance to most of the workouts
ETA: I workout in the morning - so the time I add is based on when I get up and how much time I have before my non-workout based day starts. Typical start time for these is around 4:50-5:10 AM. If I was working out after work, or later in the day, I’d be swapping to longer alternates rather than adding time - but this works well for me with a variable wake time (never set an alarm) and different work schedule each morning
Wow. What a huge week. “It was an off day, so I added 3 hours on the trainer” is not in my vocabulary. 
Pillar is free for now. After trying Pillar custom workouts exported to Zwift, I definitely regret having subscribed TR on the annual plan. I’ve cancelled my subscription.
TR has been really slow at delivering many requested features. I tried building a custom polarized plan on TR and failed. I’m loving Pillars fatigue tracker as well as their analysis of each session: accuracy breakdown score, quick graphical representation of planned vs actual time on each zone. Works great with outdoor and indoor sessions as well.
I can’t say ive ever heard of Pillar.
