My very simplistic view on this is to look at energy systems.
To do well at most cycling disciplines, you need to be able to ride for long distances using predominantly fat as fuel. This preserves glycogen fuel stores for when you need them at the end of a race, and also helps prevent bonking.
And you need to be able to ride at high intensities close to, at, or above FTP for climbs, breakaways, etc. - which primarily uses glycogen for fuel.
Riding at low intensities (~ LT1, VT1, ~65% of FTP - pitch your metric) is the best way to improve fat metabolism, as āfat maxā is somewhere in this range.
And riding at sweet spot and above is a great way to stress your body, boost VO2 max, increase % of time at a given % of VO2 max - basically boost FTP.
So I think both POL and SST have merit. If you already have a very strong aerobic base, do SST; POL if you are looking to improve aerobic base and fat metabolism.
The āpolarizedā model works best for isopower effort sports ā rowing, running, XC skiing are all much less stochastic than cycling, unless you are a pursuiter or a 40k TT specialist.
road racing cyclists spend a lot of time between 76-90% of FTP in races, and their training needs to reflect that (which usually means doing a good amount of that kind of work during the Base period).
Lydiard, Daniels, Canova, Billat, and just about any other coach out there usually has two āhardā days each week and then everything else is steady-state endurance training (Lydiard did not specify heart rate, but āenduranceā for all of them ended up being 65-80% of HR Peak ā or, what cyclists would think of as Frielās HR zone 2). What the āhardā is varies by macrocycle, but really, all of these training methods were āpolarizedā in the sense that the vast majority of training sessions were done at the āenduranceā intensity.
As for applying running programs to cycling, if your events are all 2hrs or less, it might be productive to look at how 400/800 or 800/1500 combo runners train ā yes, they have a big aerobic base, but their training emphasis is on going really fast for 1-4 minutes, which tends to be the duration of the make-the-break moments in the races that most of us do.
By the way, Seilerās study of elite endurance athletes has exactly 0 studies of non-track cyclists with a polarized model. the only two studies on road cyclists show threshold/PID models. Does not prevent cyclists to flock around this. This forum is a great testament for that. And what an influence a few podcasts can have these days.
And running two-a-days. Donāt forget about that part. Thatās 2 hard within about 10 runs. Iām not saying you didnāt know that. Iām just pointing that out because ppl will read 2 hard per week and think: āoh, I train 4 days per week and 2 of those are hardā. Nope. They donāt do that.
Indeed ā the frequency of intensity depends on the overall volume.
Although we donāt do 2-a-days much ā if at all ā but if you make the time to train each day, the"two days of intensity, the rest easy" model works for us, too.
If youāre riding your bike 4 days a week, you should probably be going pretty well each time, given that you have a whopping three rest daysā¦
I would argue that the more classic model is the pyramidal tid for running and cycling. Many running events are significantly longer than an hour so to gain the proper specificity they are doing that tempo work.
So far the xc skier model is focusing on a sport where the specificity of the competition demands big surges then recoveries in a roughly 30 minute race.
The biggest takeaway from looking at how a polarized model might work better is it follows the mantra of ākeep the hard days hard, and the easy days easyā that way you can really nail those targets on the hard days and reap the most benefits from the intensity. Also, junk miles are not junk, they serve a purpose.
Miles are junk if they donāt serve a purpose. Too slow to build top end, too fast to recover or build endurance. They are āfineā in small doses just to enjoy cycling but the term ājunk milesā came about because thatās all that a recreational cyclist does. Toodle around at 70-80% of FTP and turn the odometer.
So how are those then junk if they are done by a recreational cyclist with no racing goals? They do serve their purpose.
Personally that is a target range that is very much in line with an endurance ride, putting my hr right on the bullseye chad has listed in his spreadsheet. Again, definitely serves a purpose.
Another thing Iām gathering from these discussions is that hr is an important metric. People talk about trying to get fat adapted, so if your body says a particular pace is not stressful why would you go slower to fit in to a specific power zone.
Yes. But Maff also has a range of +/- 5 beats approximately. Go 5 beats lower if you are not in good shape or coming off an illness or you can push 5 beats higher if you are in good aerobic condition. Iām 60 yo so my Maff HR would be 120 by the formula, but I find between 125 and 130 is right for me.
that is my only goal with TrainerRoad