I know I listened to that when it was released, but I will review it again to see what else we can learn from it.
Thanks for the tip. 
I remember reading in the āTime Crunched Training Programā book (by Carmichael) that they (CTS, the training company) empirically found that long slow rides (albeit not sure he means polarized) where ineffective for his trainees (if one had less that 12 hours per week)
the assumptions here are that
(a) they (CTS) have a fairly wide ādatabaseā of riders, at different levels and skills
(b) there is no reason for a coach to promote a different plan (ie TCTP vs ātraditionalā) if they think that it will not work better, at least for the time limits and the types of riders that employ it
TR inarguably has a vastly larger dataset (all with power info btw), and no reason (that I can see) to promote one methodology over the other (in fact they have two different approaches available for base training). I also think their (TRs) dataset is definitely larger and more diverse than any lab may have
However, the analysis they do on the data they have can be pretty insightful, yet Iām pretty sure that what they get is mostly (really good) prescriptions. But, it is very possible that there are people who respond to POL better, despite the prescriptions.
The lovely thing about coachChad however is that he also reads (and tests) a ton. So it seems to me that TR has excellent data and analysis, but also a coaching team that wants to know the whyās.
Anyway, as I said at the beginning, this is all based on -I hope- reasonable assumptions (and an unsupported note by Carmichael).
Agreed, all the empirical data Iām familiar with seem to indicate that developing a huge aerobic base (raising LT1 power) requires 12-20 hours a week. I also have the Time Crunched book and was my 12+ reference. The 10+ reference is the TR traditional base plan. Was planning to take a look at my Friel books this weekend, and also the classic Training and Racing with a Power Meter.
1 Like
Iād think being in the ātime crunched cyclistā business would be motivation for CTS. There are many reasons things like 6 minute abs exist and are profitable. āThe 30 hour cyclistā would be pretty tough to marketā¦
1 Like
I may have missed this, and I apologize if I missed this comment. However, I think this conversation has been pretty āpolarizedā in itself. While there are many different types of training, a lot of professional athletes have plans that are blended. Shifting in proportions as they progress through their training cycles. It may be worth while to shift the conversation to when which training mode is appropriate.
2 Likes
I agree! I also listened multiple times and took detailed notesā¦ I wish they had stayed consistent in discussion of percentage of FTP, percent of VO2, power vs HRā¦ it was all over the place at times!
Iām encouraged to see what I came up with matches yours although my notes arenāt as pretty and well organized as yours.
wattkg.com has excellent info that closely correlates with Seiler. The only difference between wattkg.com and what you and I have gleaned from Fast Talk, etc is that wattkg.com also likes 8ā x 30ā/15ā tabata style intervals as an option for the intense days. Personally I like those too as I feel they keep a bit of extra snap in the legs than just 8 mins x 1.08FTP. Adds a little variation to the workouts.
2 Likes
I agree for sure. I donāt think a static approach is appropriate in most cases. And I donāt think that is what most of us are planning.
The challenge, and what drives my personal interest, is to learn if and how the Polarized approach can be applied (with real success) in a more time-crunched approach. My simple review seems to show that most analysis was done with high level athletes and much more time than 6-8 hours per week. It seems the Threshold model is tried and true in most cases of the T-C athlete.
So, it a POL method is desired for any stage of development, the precise application and effectiveness in various volumes (especially low) is one huge question for me.
1 Like
I appreciate the confirmation of the data. I have checked it multiple times, but I love having a separate person check my work. I have literally stared at it for hours and during repeated review of the casts in attempt to make it ārightā, but I always have a slight bit of doubt. Thanks a ton.
I need to do a bit more research on Hi-Int workout options. I have several different ones in my plan, but I want to have a few more options as well.
Thanks for the link to the other site, I will check out their info as well.
valid point. However weāre discussing if you can get more bang from POL in 5-9 hours
I tried the CTS training program for the summer and fall leading to cyclocross season and found that my lap pace declined each lap during a 40 minute race. This was doing 6-10 hours per week. I changed to polarized training and upped the hours to 10-12 hours per week and found that my pacing stabilized and my race results much improved.
Steve
@steveh67 But this sounds pretty hard to tease out the actual cause here as you changed two things (different plan + significantly more training time), right? Who knows what would have happened on a CTS plan with 10 - 12 weekly hours.
To be clear - Iām a huge fan of polarized, but hard to compare to more traditional plans when multiple pieces are moving around.
2 Likes
I think that it was the additional low intensity volume that made the difference. If you take the CTS plan, which is a few very high intensity hours per week, and increase the % of low intensity volume, then you get something that resembles a polarized training program.
1 Like
Iāve started to do some searching for results of Polarized training vs. Threshold training for athletes who train in the 6-8 hours per week range.
There are a number of studies Iāve found that generally show similar results in concept. The study below is probably the most directly relevant to this group - as it included āwell trainedā cyclists who had been training for at least 4 years, trained on average 7-8 hours per week, with 40k TT power averaging ~280W. So reasonably strong cyclists, but not professionals.
The participants followed either a Polarized training approach, or Threshold training approach for 12 weeks, averaging 6.5-7.5 hours per week of training. At the end of the training period, the POL group increased their 40k TT power by 20W, while the Threshold group increased their 40k TT power by 10W.
My takeaway here is less that Polarized is better than Threshold, but that a Polarized training approach certainly can work for cyclists who have only 6-8 hours per week to train.
Note: there are more details included in the link about the nature of the training program, and the specifics of the results, but in the interest of brevity, I tried to capture the main takeaways above. Please add or correct me if I missed or misinterpreted anything 
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00652.2012
5 Likes
Awesome info! Thanks for the great summary. I will check that info out and see what I can learn.
I am looking at a 9 hour average, so a bit more time than the lower values. But that is a bit with respect to my prior training schedule and a desire to maximize my chance of seeing something from a shorter (4 week) time frame for my test.
I will say itās crazy again how tired my legs are from these LSD rides. Another 4 hour burner at 160w with only about 15 seconds of coasting. Not sure I will be as sore as last week, but there is real fatigue from 4 hours of trainer riding in low gear (34x18).
1 Like
Yep - it will be interesting to see if you see an FTP improvement in this timeframe. I wonder also if you might see an improvement in performance on longer rides - either in addition to, or as an alternative to, an FTP improvement. The rationale here might be that LSD rides improve fat metabolism and slow twitch muscle recruitment. This is my main goal of following a Polarized approach.
By the way, thx for being the guinea pig on this one I havenāt yet started a disciplined polarized training approach, so will be at least another 4-6 weeks before I can share any meaningful insights.
1 Like
Performance gain by interventtion was measured with
- ramp test PPO
- 40 K TT
Both metrices representative for effort at and above LT2.
Threshold group trained 0% at or above LT2. Actually, they trained only at 50% Zone2. This is not even SST. I would put this more to slightly above AeT/VT1. How were they supposed to improve in effort levels theyāve never trained?
For me this study does not show any advantage of either training system, it only highlights the fundamental principle of specificity. You improve in areas where you train.
However, what I find quite impressive, THR still showed some improvement in these high effort metrices. Now picture them having done some additional >LT2 work. A third pyramidal group would have been interesting.
2 Likes
Agree - this was a limitation of the threshold protocol - no high intensity stuff
Like I said in my summary takeaway, I donāt view this as showing Polarized is better than Threshold (as defined in the study), but that a Polarized approach delivers improvements at training volumes in the range of 7-8 hrs per week.
1 Like
Interesting study, thanks for sharing.
I wish we had a long ranging study that followed someone over a full normal season. A 4 week detraining period followed by 6 weeks of training is valuable data, but it doesnāt match the way that people train and race.
1 Like
For me it just begs the question, did it matter that it was POL? Or would any other TID with some intensity have caused the same improvements at the high end effort level (here I have to correct my previous posting, improvements were not seen in PPO but in 95% exercise capacatiy - which even makes the specificity principle more obvious)?
Iām just wondering if folks with a limited time budget are really well advised to force themselves into a POL TID. Perhaps listening to your body and honest self-checking on what it can tolerate may be a more beneficial approach? Why not add more intensity (or mid-intensity) when youāre capable of that? 20h athletes gravitate automatically to something more polarized. Especially when we grasp zone 3 wider than many people assume.
Yep, a marvelous topic to be discussed.
2 Likes