Nate, thank you for leading a group of folks who in turn help us all. Given that everyone using TR is linked and all of the data is available, has TR considered running studies on the effectiveness of different training strategies? Everyone that uses TR is plugged in. There’s a treasure trove of data available to analyze to help sort out the best strategies and how they relate to people of different age groups and different goals.
For this thought experiment we did not count time between intervals (recovery valleys), cool-downs, or the initial warm-up time at 50% ftp; we only counted explicit z1 endurance intervals (distinct from recovery valleys). For short-short z3 intervals, we considered the full block of short-shorts (z3 peaks AND z1 recovery valleys) as being spent in z3. So the only z1 we counted was actual z1 interval blocks.
The two Sweet Spot Base High Volume (HV) plans show classic Threshold (THR) TID, with z1 < z2, and these are the only plans that have no z3 work. The Time-Crunch plans (Low Volume/LV, mid-volume/MV) and HIT Maintenance LV align most closely with the HIIT TID (z3>z2>z1, with very low volume). The Traditional Base plans have by far the highest volume and highest percentage of z1, but also include z2 and z3 (z2 > z3). These are borderline HVLIT/LSD (not strictly z1), or PYR with a very, very broad base.
The largest subset of plans fall into the PYR TID with z1 > z2 > z3, e.g. General Build MV and HV, Short Power Build MV and HV, Century MV and HV, Gravity MV and HV, Cross MV and HV, Climbing RR MV and HV, and more.
Many LV plans are mostly z1 and z3 with some z2 (z1 > z2, but z3 > z2); these are not LSD, HIIT, or THR, nor are they classically PYR (z1 > z2 > z3). I would not call them POL, either, but unlike LSD, HIIT, and THR, they address all three zones.
Before anyone comes at me with a blow torch, please let me first put on my fire suit with some clarifying points. 
-
The 5 TIDs most referenced in the literature are not the only TIDs possible. Stöggl et al (2015) even note that a major open question in the research is whether less-explored TIDs may prove more beneficial than the Big Five. This thought experiment was to get a snapshot of plans as they pertain to those 5 TIDs.
-
I do not advocate for or against any particular TID. I am TID neutral!
All of the Big Five TIDs have been demonstrated to confer benefits, and which TID will best serve the needs of a given individual depends on context (e.g. training status, goals, age, training history, health, schedule constraints, discipline, etc). Both applied and experimental evidence support using different TIDs in combination over the larger-picture periodization of a training plan, and the “best” combination of TIDs would also depend on an individual’s specific context. -
Even the literature is not crystal clear on what % time in each zone “properly” defines each TID; within each of the Big 5 TIDs, there is a great deal of variability in terms of % time in zone that would still be considered that TID. For example, one of the primary pillars of the accepted definition of POL is that z3 > z2, or even z3 >>> z2, or even z2 = 0%. However, in a study by Muñoz et al in which Dr. Seiler is a co-author, they selected a subset of athletes from the POL group of athletes, which they deemed represented the “most” POL of the POL group; these athletes completed 78% z1, 11% z2, and 11% z3, notably with z2 = z3. I am in no position to say whether this is “right” or “wrong” – I only observe and point out that there is substantial variability in the literature in terms of what ratios of time in zone constitute which TIDs, and even when it comes to studies by Dr. Seiler himself.
-
On that note, it’s easy to see based on even a glance at the forum, that there is also substantial disagreement as to whether a TID should be defined based on day, session goal, or time in zone. I am also in no position to say one way is better than another, and I don’t defend either approach. I only point out that different approaches exist in the literature, and that most prospective, interventional studies define TIDs based on time in zone, while many retrospective and observational studies use days or the session-goal approach. I have yet to read a consensus of researchers agreeing on a single methodology to define TIDs, let alone a specific set of time-in-zone percentages that defines each TID. (Stöggl also points out that there is not yet even an agreed-upon metric by which to judge the relative effectiveness of one TID against another: FTP? PPO? VO2max? Competition time? TTE? Are these metrics all equally relevant across disciplines?)
-
This thought experiment was just that: a thought experiment. It is not the basis by which we judge the effectiveness of our training plans. (I want to reiterate that I’m not here to defend any particular TID!) It’s important to note that for athletes using custom plans via Plan Builder, time in zone will vary depending on goal, discipline, plan-length, volume, compliance, etc, and plans will vary even more with Adaptive Training, depending on how each athlete progresses as an individual (context).
-
TID, like TSS, is one metric among many to consider in evaluating a plan. You might aim for a specific TSS, but find you need to adjust based on how you feel, in context (life stress, schedule changes etc). Adapting to your individual needs and context will likely be more effective than aiming for a certain TSS; you might perform better with a higher or lower TSS than you thought! Similarly, one TID may work well for you a in a specific circumstance (e.g. indoor winter training, or during exams), while another might be better in different circumstance (e.g. summer outdoor training, or during summer break) or at a different point in your training plan. What works for you is what matters most.
19 Likes
That’s part of what Adaptive Training is made to do.
@Nate_Pearson and @ambermalika As you look to build out AI features to track the impact of menstrual cycles on athletes, you may find some of the resources and researchers noted in this article helpful.
And, as long as I’m here… Right on with the awesome product, generous team, and thoughtful mindset that you bring to your listeners and customers day in and out. Thank you! Or as it goes in podcast land, 5-Stars!
Cheers
1 Like
Tim Cusick gives a fantastic breakdown on training modality here.
He explains his favorite time to use polarized is when peaking for races. I’ve also found this the best solution.
He uses sessions, as does Stephen Seiler. I use sessions, most of the coaches I know use sessions. I feel the polarized hard / easy training rhythm is dramatically more important than strict TIZ. TIZ over a week and within sessions can be very complex.
I would think that long term the optimal TR program will look something like…
Traditional Base or SS Base
Build
Polarized specialty
This structure with the caveat that the sessions, inc during base and build, are polarized. What this easy / hard session structure is, is the holy grail. Is it 80/20, 70/30 60/40 etc. Everyone is different. Some tolerate 2 hard days a week, some more, some less. Some people tolerate sweetspot well, others don’t.
This is the art of coaching. Long term AI will know this, however it will not happen quickly. As the recovery will need to be measurable for it to be more precise than our own perception of fatigue.
In order to accurately prescribe training all of the following inputs are needed. There are many others I imagine…
Age
Athlete phenotype
Previous training history
Sleep, both immediate and general
Current training fatigue
Glycogen status
Job stress, it needs to know this at macro daily level
Family stress
Relationship stress
Daily physical load outside of training
Illness
When the AI has all these inputs, it will be able to accurately prescribe training. The big question mark for me is recovery. We currently have no reliable metric. Some think HRV does this. I don’t think it’s currently useable enough to strictly rely on it. Our own perception still smashes it.
I was thinking, why not a simple ten question sliding scale form you filled out each morning? It took this data prior to giving you your daily training prescription. This could add useful long-term data on individual athletes and overall prescriptions.
7 Likes
@Jonathan are they out yet. I can’t see them yet. I’m doing some strength training for the next 2-3 months - but then intend to go POL until Spring '22.
Thanks
Yup, released back in March of this year:
2 Likes
You need to enable them under the “Early access” tab in your profile otherwise they won’t appear on the Training Plans page. (Same place you turn on AT)
1 Like
Thanks. Much appreciated.
I can’t see an early access tab in the section that includes the AT tab buddy. Is this on the mobile app dude 
I’m accessing things via the website on a desktop - https://www.trainerroad.com/app/profile/early-access For me this page has two items: Adaptive Training and Polarised Plans.
Cheers buddy I only looked on mobile app. I will have a look on desktop