I’m so glad you enjoyed the deep dive! Even better that we were able to break it down into something understandable. Given the many challenges/limitations researchers face when they conduct interventional studies in applied performance, it can be really hard to tease out the nuance clearly. If we could do that to any degree, it feels like a win!
The limitations/holes we noted are why such a big gap exists between the research and application: the results of a few (or even several) studies don’t always give a clear signal for real-life application. I agree this is a point of frustration. In other fields where factors are more easily controlled and where studies can test much larger populations, it’s much easier to draw clear conclusions based on a handful of studies. In applied sport physiology and performance, the difficulties in controlling factors and studying large populations means that we need a much more robust body of evidence to responsibly infer conclusions. We tried to pack a lot into this episode; hence the focus on Polarized Training Intensity Distribution approaches (TIDs). There is a long and robust body of research supporting Pyramidal (PYR) TIDs in cycling (our plans mostly fall w/in PYR TIDs), and even recent research indicates that PYR TIDs can elicit performance outcomes as well as POL TIDs. The emerging research on POL TIDs shows a lot of promise, but remains scarce especially as applied to cycling specifically, and in terms of the application in context of periodization, training status, etc. Without more robust evidence, it doesn’t seem responsible to completely overhaul our plans. (We’d get whiplash if we did this for every study published!) BUT, we’re really curious about what we see emerging in the research, and we’re excited to learn more! That’s why we’re working on making POL plans available as an experimental plan to athletes who want to experiment with this approach for themselves. The bonus is that this will help us all better understand POL TID in context of e.g. age, training status/history, volume, periodization, etc. It stands to reason that the effectiveness of any TID will largely depend on context, which is so hard to capture in the controlled environments demanded for experimental studies.
If you scroll further up in the thread, there was a math error behind some of the charts that they were using in the discussion. So they removed the podcast while they correct the data.
Thanks for the reply, and this is kind of what I was after. My thinking though was that if any study can be faulted or perhaps doesn’t take into account some specific variable or maybe something is overlooked, is there really enough evidence out there that can validate that PYR>POL or they POL>PYR, and if not, why did TR choose to omit what are considered POL plans in favor of PYR?
I’m sure there is no one end all be all training method that works for everyone, and I would think it would be irresponsible to simply replace the existing plans with POL because it becomes a popular discussion. What I don’t understand is why they weren’t offered as an OPTION, even if TR thinks they are less effective, or less proven, but we have the traditional base plans which fall into the same “we don’t really recommend this” bucket.
I’m not arguing the science or data, frankly it’s all a bit intimidating (and you did a great job breaking it down into layman language by the way) just don’t know why it took so long to have the option there
I think the TL;DR of all this podcast boils down to
TR is not just sweet spot
POL might give better results if adhered to (aka you have time)
Shorter workouts get better adoption/compliance rates so they’re put the forefront of the workouts people will actually do.
Because in the end, the workout you do is better than the workout you don’t do.
I suspect many of the plans may come out with a PYR structure only by virtue of the recovery week and not due to a PYR structure week-by-week. For example, I did weeks 2 to 6 of the SSBMV1 plan a few months ago and my weekly distributions looked something like:
So although the overall volume could be classified as PYR the structure of the work weeks is Threshold. This is different to the referenced studies that maintain a consistent PYR structure throughout I believe.
I really do not get all this is one better than another, which is better, why does it have to be, significantly anyway? Surely if one were markedly better, we would know by now, and under the same circumstances, be following the same TiD.
I do not think one is better in the ‘real’ world, both (most/all TiDs) have their place.
Some days I might borrow my wife’s car, when going into town, its smaller and easier to street park in town, when we go on holiday, we will use my car which is an estate. Which car is better? Well at each different point in time both could be.
In an ideal world I go…
Post session break then
Autumn - Long Steady Distance (don’t like the ‘slow’ term)
I would do LSD Oct – Dec if the weather and daylight hour were good.
PYR – Jan – Mar, bad weather, light
POL – Summer.
The reality (UK) is generally LSD Oct, PYR Nov to March/April then POL.
You bring up a good point re: timeline, and I think this is one of those between-the-lines points that often gets lost in these discussions. It’s long been a practice among athletes to increase low-intensity work and substitute higher intensity for moderate-intensity at different points in a competitive season (i.e. to "p"olarize their training): for example to dump fatigue and sharpen the top-end form during a taper for an event, or while in a heavy competition season where racing constitutes most of the intensity work and recovery becomes more important than increasing fitness. Small “p” polarizing has been a component of periodization for a long time. It wasn’t until 2004 that Seiler coined the term “Polarized,” and it’s taken even more time since then to see interventional studies testing what Seiler and others saw emerging as a POL ratio in observational data. Noting my previous reply about the dearth of studies and the need to develop a robust body of research to responsibly infer conclusions, the identification and investigation of Polarized as its own separate TID is relatively recent in the literature. While not as bad as geologic time (!), the pace of research doesn’t track in real time, given these studies can take years from inception to publication. This is probably why Polarized Training wasn’t immediately popular or implemented in those first couple of years, but has gained in popular awareness more recently. The idea of applying a single TID to a whole plan is also not well founded, even in the research showing POL as a promising TID. Researchers have yet to examine POL as a TID in longer-term or even season-long studies for cycling, or to examine POL as a stand-alone TID vs. a TID implemented in combination with other TIDs within different periodization models.* At TR we don’t take a position regarding TIDs; instead we look to the data (both in the literature and in our own database). So far, there isn’t clear evidence in the literature on cycling that supports the idea of building entire plans (i.e. multi-block, season-long, or longer) using exclusively a POL TID. That said, many of our athletes are eager to try it, so we see that as a win-win: offer the option for athletes to experiment, and we all learn something in the process.
*For reference, a (recent!) 2018 Review of POL studies in the literature could only find 3 studies that met the following criteria for meta-analysis: random allocation of subjects, endurance-trained athletes w/ >2y training experience + VO2max > 50ml/kg/min, a POL group, a THR group, and assessed either internal (physiologic) or external (performance) outcomes. Of those, only two of the studies included cyclists. Of those two, only one looked specifically at cyclists (n=11, started as 12 could only analyze 11) and the other pooled athletes from several endurance sports including cycling (cyclists were n=15). It’s a good example of how few studies there are on the effectiveness for POL TIDs in cycling.
Dear Amber, there may be more recent studies since the 2018 meta-analysis such as this one by Rivera-Kofler et al:
Abstract Currently there are two most used training models that condition the work methodology in endurance athletes: Threshold Training (UMB) and polarized training (POL). The objective of the present study was to compare the effect of both programs on the aerobic performance of trained cyclists. The research included 18 athletes who were randomly distributed in the BMU group (n= 9; age 38 ± 7 years; height 171.8 ± 6.9 cm; body weight 74.10 ± 10.94) and the POL group (n= 9; age 31.4 ± 12.2 years; height 167.5 ± 6.7 cm; weight 63.88 ± 5.37) who completed 4 weeks of training. Both methodologies were executed under similar characteristics in terms of total training time (BMU; 1085 min / wk; POL; 1024 min/wk) but with different intensity distribution (BMU= 70% in zone 1; 30% in zone2; 0% in zone 3; POL= 88% in zone 1; 0% in zone 2; 12% in zone 3). Body weight (kg) and functional threshold power (PUF) were measured before and after each programming. Only group with POL load reduced their body weight after the program (POL= -1.38%;p = 0.003). Also, group POL improved their PUF (5.48%; p= 0.012) and by default the watt values per kilogram of weight (V/kg) they were increased (7.17%; p= 0.015). Compared to UMB intensity distribution, 4 weeks of POL training improves aerobic performance in trained cyclists.
LINK: Vista de Efecto de dos programas de entrenamiento con diferente distribución de intensidad (polarizada vs umbral) en el rendimiento aeróbico en ciclistas entrenados (Effect of two training schedules with different distribution of intensity (polarized vs threshol
@Jonathan, for episode 300, are you all going to dress up like Spartans as in the movie 300? Seems like there should be some theme or something for such a big milestone!
