Just wanted to say- seeing how you folks are handling this gives me a TON of confidence in your product. Thanks for being so open and non-defensive about the math being wrong here- this is great, because mistakes happen, and knowing about them is way better than not knowing about them. This is how a research driven product should be run, and you folks are doing a great job.
I don’t like the ‘slow’ term either it makes them sound boring. For me a long ride with your buddies is neither slower nor boring.
Super interesting topic and discourse - making sense of the various approaches to training and adressing the recent discussions so quickly. I think it’s awesome TR elaborate on science in a transparent way with your community and customers. Perhaps it’s also necessary to somehow justify aspects of your training programmes/method. I’m super keen on hearing your updated podcast.
The conversation above got me thinking, and i’m not sure to what extent the topic has been covered or how it best could be described, but; How could one leverage training to perform in competitive cycling beyond physiological adaptations? I have to point out that i’m a rookie in terms of competitive cycling, but I have competed in rowing so perhaps some of that experience is relatable.
For sake of argument, let’s assume that a polarized (80/20:Z1/Z5) approach yields the best physiological adaptations. Thus, one would spend the majority of time training in those zones. In a real racing context however, one rather spends a whole lot of time within Z2 and Z4, aside from the coasting. Clocking up training hours in Z3 and Z4 for the sake of building grit, experience or whatever it might be called (this is where it get’s more fluffy…) should not be underestimated in my opinion. As much as a polarized approach might develop oneself, the time spent in mid-range zones also builds important experience beyond the mere physiological aspects. That being said, I would not sway from selecting a plan which offers at least 15-20% of time somewhere around Z3. I appreciate that it’s hard to analyze beyond any measurable science and as anecdotal my point might sound, I cannot imagine myself being as successful on the water unless i would have spent a considerable share of training time rowing/erging at high intensity.
Not the same thing, but my personal favorite is JRA: Just Riding Along. aka Soul Rides. 
It’s funny how different realms of research have slightly different standards. I don’t work in research but was in a graduate program that was focused in public health research, and one of the things hammered into our heads both in doing research and examining research was in looking at the generalizability of results, so sampling is huge and I’ve had stuff nitpicked because of sampling. Now I get that sampling is trickier in the realm of exercise science, but you’d think there’d be more as far as attempting to control for unmeasured variables or creating more proxy measures of whatever. So I have a really hard time taking a lot of this research super seriously because of my background, but I realize not everything is contained in large datasets!
Thank you! Our whole team puts so much work into due diligence. Mistakes are painful, but transparency is important. Appreciate you saying this. 
Is there a glossary to all the acronyms? I get lots in the letters:) If not, that might be helpful to have readily available as a reference.
Impressive work. Now if I could just get my act together on success factor #1: do the dang program as chosen, e.g. compliance. 
LOL if you find one let me know! I can barely keep up with all the abbreviations the kids are using these days. 
Its really great that our athletes are bringing this level of understanding, and I do agree that a lot of that has to do with Nate + the team’s willingness and transparency to own mistakes.
Thanks for the love (and patience lol, the team is jammin!).
Am I being too simplistic in just thinking:
Consistency + Stimulus + Rest = Progression
Stimulus - variable
Rest - variable
Edit: This is not to take anything away from the podcast, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
Second edit: just caught the start of the podcast which I had missed, @ambermalika covered this. Promise I didn’t steal it 
.
Oooooh great point! This is one of the most interesting aspects of the emerging research on POL Training Intensity Distributions (TIDs)! Some of the studies suggest that POL can prepare athletes for Z2/race-pace as well or better than Z2 work (e.g. Munoz et al 2014 on recreational runners and Munoz et al 2014 on Ironman Athletes). It’s very intriguing! Then again, other studies refute that very same concept (e.g. Selles-Perez et al 2019 study on Half Ironman). It’s hard to compare these directly because of the variation in training status, methodology, and data used to determine the effectiveness of each TID, BUT it’s a very interesting idea! For a reasonably in-depth discussion of this very concept, I’d recommend checking out Keneally et al 2017 on runners. They observe that Polarized and Pyramidal TIDs consistently outperform other TIDs in data for running, but that the world’s best marathoners continue to employ considerable Z2 work in their race prep and that further investigation is needed to better understand why that approach is so effective given contradictory data in the literature.
I personally suspect there must be a psychological and/or central-governor aspect to this: in addition to training stress toward physiological adaptations, we know that it can be just as important to train the brain (e.g. self-talk, pacing). I can’t wait until folks dig into those aspects too!
Looks like the video is back up 
@Nate_Pearson Just curious, does that chart represent all TR data, or a sample of some sort? That’s very interesting, but I must confess I am a closet data nerd…
Vid looks to be around 6 mins shorter, and I can’t find any bar graph like the one with the incorrect data above. So, quick guess (and likely wrong) is they pruned at least the section covering the graphic related section, and maybe the subset of that discussion all together.
Curious to see if I just missed it, or if it’s gone, do they plan to correct and reissue that chart? Even with the error, it may still serve to show some quick understanding of the differences / similarities between the TR plans.
Are you considering using TrainerRoad user data to conduct a study on POL, Pyramidal and SST training types once you collect enough POL data?
This platform may actually end up having the best shot at a reasonably comprehensive study, especially now that outdoor rides are being analysed too.
For real! Even understanding the challenges involved in interventional studies on humans, and on a subject as complex as sport performance, it’s hard to feel confident in drawing conclusions from studies with n < 20, regardless of whether those are typical numbers for the field. Individual and genetic variability in response to training stimuli is one of the most well-documented aspects of physiology in the literature. That’s why it’s so important to keep perspective on what can and cannot fairly/logically be concluded from a given study, and how that differs even further from what can be fairly/effectively translated to a clinical or real-life application.
How about a study to check whether watching race videos makes you faster!? 
Yes! We’re going to offer some experimental plans based on POL Training Intensity Distributions (TIDs) for our athletes who would like to self-experiment and try them. It’ll be a win-win, because we can all learn from the data!
I’ve been doing the following the past 3 weeks, which I guess is polarized by some definitions. I’ve noted this elsewhere but purely subjectively, since 2+ weeks really isn’t any way to objectively evaluate anything, I really can’t see myself doing polarized, I don’t routinely get to go do 4-5hr rides, so if I’m choosing between 2hr z2 or 2hr sweet spot on the weekend, I’m personally going with the 2hr sweet spot because I ‘feel’ more productive (and my personal experience with sweet spot is I end up feeling stronger as opposed to just going through motions with endurance)
Ok, let me be more direct…
Sure would be nice if TR created a glossary for the acronyms they use when talking about TR plans, training methods, physiology metrics etc… Seems if they’re using them they should know what the real words behind them are and share the code with those of us that don’t live in the world 24x7… Think of it as part of your quest to make the world faster by making us who use TR just that little bit smarter.
Pinned or bookmarked post, added to over time – doesn’t have to be complete the first time it’s posted…
Oh, and I picked up that you did use both the phrase and acronyms in a post following our exchange – nice. Like publishing a paper where a term is spelled out the first time with the abbreviation following, then just the abbreviation is used. If we think of every post as a new paper rather than assuming someone read the preceding one(s) which used the full term that would help too – although taking more time to write.