I’ve only just found this link to your spreadsheet today. Thanks for sharing @mcneese.chad, it’s really useful 
1 Like
Good deal. I use it pretty regularly and find it really handy to compare the different models.
Happy you like it too 
I wonder about this. I believe it was Trevor Conner in one of the podcasts that suggested that most FTP testing probably yields a power number somewhat higher than a lab lactatcte threshold test would yield - with the result that threshold and even sweet spot intervals based on FTP testing might well fall in polarised zone 3 (based on on lab lactate testing).
1 Like
Joel Friel remarks:
“The bottom line here is that even though polarized training has repeatedly been shown to produce the greatest improvements, how you train throughout the year must be seen in a far broader perspective. Smart training is not an either-or proposition.”
From:
@Nate_Pearson from “Our Training Plans are Improving” asks:
“Maybe I’m not doing it right. Can you link me to data that shows that cyclists who do 80/20 will perform better than a “Periodized Coggan” approach? If you could link me to data that shows that elite cyclists train this way that would also be helpful.”
@Nate_Pearson. Please refer to the study looked at by Joel Friel as linked above.
Do you have to have studies that show cyclists will perform better than a “Periodized Coggan” approach? Wouldn’t equivalency be enough? Or non superiority?
Do you have data that show that a “Periodized Coggan” approach performs better than a polarized or 80/20 model?
Are you only concerned with “elite” cyclists? What % of your subscribers do other sports? I live in the mountains of Colorado and ski quite often…I therefor am very much interested in what studies from other disciplines say about optimizing training…such as Dr. Seiler.
I find that a polarized approach is easier for me (as a Master’s age athlete) to do. I think that there are plenty of studies that substantiate the efficacy of a polarized or 80/20 approach.
@Nate_Pearson
Your statement: Can you link me to data that shows that cyclists who do 80/20 will perform better than a “Periodized Coggan” approach? If you could link me to data that shows that elite cyclists train this way that would also be helpful.
Is there data that shows that Traditional base performs better than a “Periodized Coggan” approach? There is not to my knowledge, but yet Traditional base is included as a plan option. Why are you raising the barrier of inclusion for a polarized (80/20) approach?
I’d like to end this post reiterating what Joel Friel stated earlier:
“Smart training is not an either-or proposition.”
Perhaps you will note that there are a number of people who have asked you specifically for a Polarized approach to training.
While I have to say that your platform is fantastic I certainly would appreciate you making it easier for myself and others who are interested in training in a Polarized manner.
Thank you for your attention to this.
That’s a lot of @nate’s 
Am I reading the study correctly? It’s a mix of skiers, runners, triathletes and cyclists?
It looks like they never did a threshold + HIIT group as we do in our build and specialty plans (depending on the specialty)
In general, you’re always going to see a big improvement in power when you do HIIT, especially in short doses. It usually starts to plateau after 6 weeks. This is why we don’t have you do VO2 max all year round. We talked about this a little bit on the last podcast too. We want to bring up your ceiling and your floor.
Chad even does this when he takes time off. He’ll do a short spurt of VO2 max work (I think he’s about to start this) to get a quick boost to his ceiling before jumping into a plan. We could possibly add a plan like this. “I used to be fit and I want to claw back some fitness quickly”.
It sounds like you really want to do a polarized plan. With the new recurring workout feature that we just launched you could actually build one like group C very easily. Pick a VO2 max workout that you want to repeat every Tuesday/Friday, then have the endurance rides fill in too.
You could also do Traditional Base and add in two HIIT workouts per week.
I’m sure you’ll get faster doing that if it’s in an increase in volume and/or intensity.
2 Likes
Honestly I’m already doing a Polarized plan. I just don’t really understand why you guys are so polarized against it.
@Nate_Pearson Thanks for the input. Just want to make sure that I’m doing what is optimal.
Is there any data that shows that a “Periodized Coggan” plan is superior to a polarized plan?
Thanks
It’s so crazy that people are “fighting” over different training regimes.
Even more so when it takes place here in this forum.
Remember where you are:
TrainerRoad – “Dedicated to making you a faster cyclist.”
Show the science which proves polarized training makes a cyclist faster than one who utilizes non-polarized training. Perhaps POL creates cyclists with deeper or longer lasting fitness adaptations, but perhaps not faster.
Again – “faster cyclists”…not more fit XC skier…not lower BF% swimmer…not higher RPM log roller…but FASTER. CYCLIST.
Sooooo very few of us who use TR will ever be paid to ride a bike, which means almost all of us have a very looooong way to go before we max out our genetics and TR training stops working for us, in other words, a “Periodized Coggan” approach will serve us just as well – overall – as would polarized training.
Not only that, but TR is not your personal coach! What the heck! Ya pay your $10/mo and ya get what ya get!
Do you email Apple every day demanding features and functions of an Android phone?! So weird… 
5 Likes
Wait, what?
Fighting, no…discussing.
I would like to be a faster cyclist.
Under a different conversation Nate stated:
I know Seiler has this pretty well documented in cross-country skiing, but as mentioned on the other thread, there’s limited evidence (and in my view contrarian evidence) that it is the best way for cyclists to train.
Let’s move the conversation from this thread to over here if you’d like to continue: Polarized Training Discussion (Fast Talk podcast & Flo Cycling podcast)
I’d like to continue the conversation so that I can (in an evidence based way) become a faster cyclist. And that’s why I asked a lot of questions.
The thing about exercise regimen implementation and data acquisition is that there is very little data to back ANY regimen. Does anyone know of any studies showing that a “periodized Coggan” method is superior to a polarized approach?
Apple and Android have proprietary considerations…and that makes this comparison weird…as you said.
Man,
I’m just trying to enter into a discussion about various training methods.
As I stated:
While I have to say that your platform is fantastic I certainly would appreciate you making it easier for myself and others who are interested in training in a Polarized manner.
1 Like
The season level intensity distribution of pro cyclists is pretty good evidence
See Section D: Figure - PMC
1 Like
As said several times before, I don’t understand what is expected from TR on this. Do 20% of your sessions or 10% of your training time >LT2 . Fill the rest with training <LT1. Train like this for the rest of your life, no periodisation. Polarised training. Really not complicated.
3 Likes
The jury is still out on POL, but I’m sure of one thing… if TR released POL plans, only a tiny % of users would actually complete the plans (including all the people requesting them on this forum). There’s no way someone doing five TR workouts a week would do 4 very easy workouts and only one VO2Max workout.
The fact is the environment of indoor training just doesn’t lend itself to POL. Getting the aerobic miles in outside in the fresh air with some nice scenery as a backdrop is one thing; doing them inside on a turbo isn’t nearly as appealing. Most people would be back to sweet spot within a few weeks, guaranteed.
The more I think about everyone using the “magic numbers” of POL, the more bonkers it seems. Should a pro athlete with elite genetics training 25 hours a week really have exactly the same intensity distributon as an average age-grouper with a full time job, training 8 hours a week? Really? Folks like Matt Fitzgerald claim everyone needs to follow an 80/20 distribution… I must admit, if I was trying to sell an 80/20 book to the mass market I’d probably say the same 
IMO everyone would benefit from incorporating some low intensity work (below AeT) in their training, but the amount required is going to vary for each person and their personal circumstances.
9 Likes
Another point - if TR were to introduce POL plans, they’d also need to change the software so you would perform the low intensity workouts to target HR instead of target power. The whole point of POL is to keep the low intensity work below AeT… this can only be implemented well by working to target HR.
2 Likes
Hi Chad, thanks for the sheet. I’m always wondering on 4 vs 5 training days per week.
I like 4 days more than 5. First because I consider myself rather on the old side of the spectrum and needing my rest (48 years, cough, cough) and second because I’d rather have 3 complete free evenings for doing completely other stuff and not have them interrupted with preparation for training, training itself etc.
So I do wonder what’s better for the example weeks with 9.5+ hours available: riding the Wednesday Zone 1 Workout or omit it and instead add it to the Saturday Workout?
Would be much nicer to use the weekend for longer rides to actually getting around in the nice surroundings and to build a nice chunk of workload.
What would be the advantages and disadvantages of staying with 4 days while adding weekly hours?
I dont have access to my sheet right now. But the examples were just that, examples of possible splits. They’re done with an emphasis on easy math.
If a different split and layout works for you, that’s great. Just aim for the 80/20 session time split and you will be all set.
I think this is very true. I do my higher intensity stuff on the trainer and it’s great. Longer, lower intensity rides, are mentally challenging on the trainer though. I fact, I’ve never ridden longer than 2 hrs indoors. For me to do POL, I need time outside. And I suspect this would be true for many other riders also.
4 Likes
I wanted to bring up that people keep referencing studies on Polarized training as if they represent a “way of training” when the studies are only focused on a 6-9 week period, which is essentially a training block.
Training block != how you train for a whole season.
First one to provide actual data on polarized for an “entire season” for a cyclist, I’ll gladly Venmo you beer/your favorite beverage money.
4 Likes
That was my conclusion after trying traditional base 1 on the trainer a couple months ago - liked the aerobic gains, despised doing it on the trainer.
2 Likes
Exactly - which is essentially what @chad is saying he’s done before prior to beginning his normal base training. Additionally, this is something that might be done in the final 4 weeks prior to an A race to get that extra little bit of top end.
One of the key points, really. Further, I don’t get this either-or proposition.
This is quite interesting in the context:
First of all from the introduction:
However, a training manual published by the International Athletics Federation (IAAF) based
on the work of Renato Canova (the coach of some of the fastest Kenyan marathon runners in
recent times, including World Record holders) has demonstrated a tendency towards a
threshold-oriented TID11. Seiler & Tonnessen1 argue the case for an 80:20 distribution ratio
between high-intensity and low-intensity work based on observational reports describing the
training of elite endurance athletes. These authors recognise both pyramidal and polarised
models of TID as being most common in these athletes1.
But:
The coach of a number of world class Kenyan athletes has written a marathon training
manual for the International Athletics Federation (IAAF)11, and has made publicly available
the training programmes of his athletes. These programmes repeatedly show the use of high
volumes (i.e. differeing from the traditional 80:20 approach) of training in the threshold zone
(as defined by %VO2max, assuming 100% of VO2max corresponds to approximately 3000m
pace). The coach (Renato Canova) describes this training as specific race pace.
The periodisation employed, however, demonstrates an initial block of polarised
training, emphasising high and low intensity, leading into a specific preparatory phase, which
is threshold-oriented, thereby employing both of the main TIDs described at different phases
of training, according to the intended goal of the phase11
Successful coaches simply use both models, in different phases.
Only 1.5 weeks left in my polarized phase, looking forward to a Kenyan style threshold phase. Adpated for cyclists.
1 Like
I am confused . According to this FLO podcast polarized training is unequivocally the way to go . This seems to contradict the TR model . Who is correct ?