Polarized Training Deep Dive and TrainerRoad’s Training Plans – Ask a Cycling Coach 299

21 Likes


I heard TR is hiring :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

43 Likes

Not a stupid question! the Polarization Index is calculated using an equation that takes time in each of the 3 zones (1, 2, 3) and spits out a number. The exact equation is Polarization Index = log 10 [z1/z2 * z3 *100]

If the Polarization Index is >2.00, according to Treff et al (see my previous post) consider that to be a Polarized Training Intensity Distribution. Realistically, given the different viewpoints on what the exact definition of Polarized TID, this is more of a range of degree of “small p” polarization. Our plans span a wide range of degrees of polarization, and probably mostly fall into a pyramidal training intensity distribution, ranging from more or less polarized.

13 Likes

I mean how do you know the limits of the zones are? If the border between zone 1 and 2 is 100 watts what does that come from. (though that was another question I have)

Ah! Most power zones are calculated based on a % of VO2max or FTP. All of our training plans are based on % of FTP, so we can use that to determine z1, z2, z3, and then break down the plans into time in zone.

4 Likes

Is the 1 to 2 border supposed to be lt1? And 2 to 3 lt3?
Lt1 probably isn’t the same for everyone with the same ftp so send like there should be a better way to make it more unique.

I understand the insensitive levels can change based on rpe which while easy for vo2 max in that you reach your body’s limit that would be hard to base something much easier

2 Likes

Close. Z1 to Z2 is defined by LT1 (which is the lowest intensity at which there is a sustained increase in blood lactate concentration above resting values). Z2 to Z3 is defined by LT2 (FTP) which is maximal lactate steady state (MLSS).

1 Like

Hi Amber,

Can you show some sample calcs, say for instance SSB LV1? Your chart has it at PI of 2.1ish, and from looking at the plan and playing with the formula in excel this doesn’t seem to work for me. Eyballing the SSB LV1 shows lots of Z2, and very little zone 3, so I’m not seeing how the math works to get this a PI of 2.1.

Thanks!

1 Like

Yup. 1/2 border is LT1, and 2/3 border is LT2.

We used % of FTP to sort the data on a power zone basis to look at the relative range of different degrees of polarization according to the Polarization Index. That just gives a a general sense of how much our plans range in terms of relative (not absolute) polarization.

When it comes to training, there is considerable individual variability - a lot of researchers use VT1 and VT2 as a proxy, since most folks can’t get lab testing to get exact LT1 and LT2. That’s useful, but there is also evidence showing VT2 doesn’t correlate as tightly with LT2, as VT1 does with LT1. There is also variability in this correlation across disciplines.

It’s important to keep in mind with all of this - there is always going to be some error, no matter how much testing you do. From a training standpoint, it’s best to apply principles and not worry too much about getting perfect precision, because it’s almost impossible to do without a lot of equipment and testing at regular intervals!

9 Likes

By no means is the the best resource, but here is the comparison chart I made back in 2018 when we first got into all this POL vs the world discussion. It came largely from the Fast Talk Podcasts with Dr. Seiler and extracting the data from their comments. Some stuff was confusion, and even contradicted between podcasts, but I think this is fine for a general consideration of the model differences and distribution.

21 Likes

That’s why we say that the range of P.I.s we see really has most of our plans falling into more of a Pyramidal Training Intensity Distribution, even if the PI is > 2.00. The PI is not a perfect metric, and we talk about that. For example, Treff et al point out that at a PI of 2.3 you can have a distribution of z1/2/3 as 90/3/7 or 50/10/40 and get the some PI of 2.3. It’s an attempt to standardize the definition of Polarized TIDs, but there is still a lot of variability even within the literature. We don’t claim our plans are “big P” Polarized, but they do span a range of “small p” polarization, mostly falling within a pyramidal Training Intensity Distribution.

7 Likes

That was a great podcast!

11 Likes

Indeed. Despite some early comments / complaints about missing regular members, I think the simple back and forth, 1-2 punch between Nate and Amber worked really well for this approach.

I like the live podcast with 3-4 people, but it can get a bit off-topic and meander a sometimes. This was well targeted and seemed focused well on a defined set of goals. I loved it and really want to re-watch to digest more. :smiley:

26 Likes

What gets even more confusing is that there is research suggesting that MLSS is actually a midpoint somewhere between VT1 and VT2 for cyclists. And it may not be that way for runners. I tell you, when you really dig into the research, it gets messy! I need some windshield wipers for my snorkel!

15 Likes

Thanks for the details

I know perfection isn’t possible but wish tr would do more than just a set percent of ftp, especially for endurance workouts.

(In that if mitochondrial density is best improved by being just below LT1 I would want to exercise there and not be far off)

Thank you!! So glad you enjoyed it!

5 Likes

Really happy to hear you enjoyed it Chad! Thank you for listening and engaging!

6 Likes

I’m only 14 minutes into it, so I apologize if you answer this in the podcast, but I’m impatient.

Are you guys still looking to roll-out a “polarized plan” to appease the masses, or should we look at the polarization index and go about it that way?

I did not realize Amber had such a diverse background - very impressive!

Edit: Adaptive Training and New TrainerRoad Training Plans 1:31:30

5 Likes

Yes, POL plans are coming:

4 Likes

Love when the podcasts have more technical details like this one

5 Likes