So I really enjoyed the podcast because it broke down some studies I’d never read myself into something very understandable. I also really liked Amber’s intro, wish we could get that for the other staff unless maybe I’ve missed it in prior podcasts.
What I still don’t understand however is if we can essentially poke holes in any study and question any outcome (and rightfully so), why TR chose to set their plans up and not include what most consider a polarized plan (like what’s coming next week) until now, and why it has to be explicitly stated that this is only for experimental purposes: it just comes off as trying to back up the existing plans which apparently can’t be proven more or less effective in a study with any real accuracy and came off as “we don’t really think they are worthy but we’re willing to experiment because people keep asking”
If the research can’t conclusively show that the plans we have coming are better than the ones we have, and can’t prove that the plans we have are better than the ones that are coming, why did TR choose to leave the POL plans out of the equation for so long? Are there studies showing that the way TR sets up plans is better? Does our own data show that TR plans are better, and if so, what is it comparing that to since we don’t offer the alternative.
I heard a lot of great arguments about why some studies are flawed but that’s basically all I heard: nothing about how our existing method is better or more effective, and I would think it has to be more effective or the plans wouldn’t be built this way. It was nice to see the graphic showing SSBHV as the outliers for the elite 7%, certainly a great chest pounding moment for those in the plans, but didn’t explain the concerns so many others have with burnout in the other plans. Also would have liked to see where the traditional base plans fall on that chart but they weren’t included.
I have seen polarized pushed in rowing, and I heard that some of the initial work was also done in track cyclists. A key difference between these and most cycling disciplines is that race efforts are not done at FTP, so training FTP isn’t race specific.
For example, the team pursuit are looking at a ~4m effort at the world record pace. An 8+ rowing crew at world record pace are around 5:20. You will get little benefit from training at LT2 since these are VO2max events.
For cyclists targeting longer efforts, I am not convinced polarized is optimal overall. Maybe it is beneficial in the base phase as a way to raise aerobic capacity.
I think that this all is no less than a pure desaster. And I feel really sorry for the TR people. But, Pride comes before a fall. If one answers the criticism for not being polarised enough with „hey, actually all our plans are“ one should be REALLY sure about it. Anyway, shit happens. One can only hope that the foundations of the AT are more solid. Whatever the reason for Chads absence in the Podcast 299 was, he should not be too unhappy for not being too involved. He was already inevitably quiet in the podcast announcing AT. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Thank you! I agree the mistake was not cool. It was an honest mistake which is why we took immediate steps to correct it. Of the five main Training Intensity Distributions (TIDs) examined in the literature the bulk of our plans fall into a Pyramidal (PYR) TID, and they span a range of “small p” polarization (not “P” Polarized). This remains quantitatively true in spite of the mistake. Our primary aims were to 1) clear up some confusion about terms used in discussing polarized training (e.g. periodization v. TIDs, TIDs v. power zones, "P"olarized v. "p"olarized), 2) clarify why we often get pigeon-holed as sweet spot training and that our plans combine mostly linear periodization with PYR TID with a range of "p"olarization, and 3) look more analytically at the some of the recently cited studies on Polarized TIDs in the literature.
There’s some selection bias there I guess - the people who are completing full TR plan cycles are likely to be spending a lot more time indoors or at least solo, and not doing much in the way of group or club rides, hence you’re less likely to know them irl.
Yeah we feel terrible about the mistake, and please know it was an honest one, not an act of bad faith: hence the immediate steps to correct. The main criticism we’ve seen is the mistaken characterization of our plans are sweet spot training and the comparison of sweet spot training to (big P) Polarized Training Intensity Distribution approaches (TIDs). While our training plans do include sweet spot intervals, most of our plans are primarily Pyramidal TIDs with varying ratios of z2/z3. Chad was out of town this week when we recorded, but was a huge help in researching the literature.
Correct. They are supposed to be available next week according to what was said on the podcast. Once the new one is posted, I’m sure we’ll all be sharing the link with the timestamp to confirm.
As TrainerRoad refines their Adaptive Training program, they will take a more and more dominant position within the training world. I appreciate transparency like this, and I think it will be needed in the future again.
I’m not entirely sure what surprising revelations people expect to find in ‘the Science’. It’s not exactly a murder mystery.
It’s interesting for sure and TR deep dives are much appreciated. But it’s not like anyone will uncover this super secret training methodology that’ll magically make us twice as fast if someone just stares at some papers long enough.
Nothing has changed! TrainerRoad plans are still the same. You are still the same. Everybody knows these kind of fails. What happened happened. Shortly after submitting my PhD thesis I realised that there is a stupid mistake in the summary: „tenfold pH change“ instead of „tenfold proton concentration change“. Very similar to using percentage instead of ratios. One learns a lot from these fails. Keep on the good work and be proud of what you accomplished.
Also, specialty provides a taper to events, which no one was doing last year. So perhaps people repeat base and build because we’re all in a perpetual base/build cycle until events begin.
Oh yes it’s so common! You wouldn’t believe the amount of times I have seen people (including me lol) getting some unit wrong and ending up with an error of factor 1000. You can occasional even see it in published literature!
Hmmm… video is marked as private unavailable on Youtube and has not turned up on any Podcast apps that I use? You guys really know how to build the anticipation
… Fast, but alone…
