Weird flex. Never said that was hilly, I said it was the lowest amount of elevation I can find in the area.
Two things that bug me on this forum are 1) when people ask how hard a workout should be and 2) when people say how easy a workout should be. Each person is individual and at a different fitness levels. So easy for one person could be hard for another. Sure 4x8 threshold should be doable assuming correct threshold, proper fueling, proper rest, experience, etc. But that is a lot of assuming. My approach would be to not worry so much about hitting target power but remember the goal of the workout in terms a a Polarized approach - You are trying to accumulate a large amount of time at a high heart rate. So instead of 8 mins at 100%, do 8 at 97%, or 4 at 100% and 4 at 95%. Just do what you can to make the workout achievable while still accumulating time >= 95% max heartrate. Many people on Polarized plans prefer not to use Erg or go by power at all. And yes going from 8 to 16 minutes can be a large jump in terms of progression so make or find a workout that is in-between (i.e. 3x12) if you need to.
9 Likes
update: I went for broke and tried Miller Peak. surprisingly managed to make it through the first interval but cracked 4m into the second one, took 30s break, tried again to no luck, and ended up just dropping to 60% for a while then ramping back up.
will take a look at the 3 remaining threshold days and see if I can come up with any good replacements that are less steep of a progression.
1 Like
Good effort. It does seem a big jump to go from 8 minutes to twice as long.
1 Like
yep - the progressions in these plans make no sense at all…wait until you have to go 6…9…12 x 2m @>120%…
1 Like
Do you think these plans have been setup to guarantee failure 
1 Like
I said that in one of my comments immediately after they were published…prefaced by something like “the more cynical me thinks that possibly…” but i don’t genuinely think they are as I do believe TR only have positive intent.
However I do think they are rushed, untested, poorly thought through and fixated on 4, 8, 16 min intervals at about 105% without really trying to build appropriate progressions.
I was really excited about these plans being launched as I’ve been following a pol approach for months, but sadly am really disappointed in what has been published and will stick to my own plan thats been getting me great results so far. I guess time will tell but I don’t hear any stories of early success following them yet 
Its a shame as I should be exactly the type of subscriber that should be jumping on these - I was sold before they even launched…
4 Likes
Hey all, I have a concern I was wondering if anyone can address.
I have recently decided to adopt the 80/20 principle to my running training, and now that the experimental polarised plans are out, am very excited to try them out for cycling.
I’ve just finished week one, and the low intensity workouts seem a little…too low? I find myself at a working heart rate of 115, and I’m not sure if that will be enough to bring about any adaptations. While not an apples to apples comparison, my low intensity runs are at a HR of between 144 - 155.
For context I am a 29 year old male moderately active male.
Cheers!
What is your HRmax and LTHR if you know it?
115 does sound low for 29 yrs
LTHR for running is at 178. I don’t have one for cycling as the polarised plan is based on the ramp test. My legs failed quite quickly at the aero position.
I’d say even with a HR in the 130s Z1 shouldn’t be over taxing, but hard to know for sure without HR readings from the bike.
Assume at 115 you are nose breathing (in at least.)
Personally I can tell if I am getting close to LT1 if I eat something chewy, or take a slow long drink and it slightly stresses me out. Another give away is suddenly I notice a marked change in my breathing pattern / frequency.
2 Likes
Right there with you. I made it a little farther into the second interval but still felt destroyed. HR was around 95% of max.
1 Like
Even the weekly TSS progression seems wrong. Specifically the huge jump from week 2 to 3 seems like it could be an injury risk for some folks.
1 Like
Your ftp is from ramp test?
1 Like
Sorry, I will be a bit harsh, as I see a lot of people complaining that 2x16mn at FTP is not doable/crazy difficult (and the failure rate on Miller Peak shows it really is a lot). If it is the case, you either have a medical condition, or your FTP setting is wrong. I would first consider the later as having the highest probability… It is as simple as this. It has nothing to do with bad plan or progression (If you go directly to 30mn intervals or cumulated time over 50mn then it could be the issue, but not the case here).
I found myself guilty of overthinking my failures on longer threshold and O/U workouts, like a lot of people here (sleep? fueling? Maybe I am just bad at it?). I wanted progression with some 6 then 8 then 10 then 12 mn intervals. To mask the painful truth: my FTP was not 245W. It was 235W. Period. The longer intervals don’t allow you to mask this with some gutting out in the last 2-3mn of the interval. Everything collapses in the 2nd interval… Folks, face the truth. Your FTP is set too high… 
31 Likes
I really don’t believe the issue is where my FTP is set. If it was, I would also have a problem completing the other intensity workouts, yet I’m able to do them exactly as prescribed. Sure, FTP is supposed to be your “hour power” but almost no one can do it for an hour. Riding at FTP for an extended period takes specific training. They’ve said it on the podcast countless times. If a lot of people are complaining about it, its likely not because they all just happen to have their FTP set too high. I JUST did a ramp test a couple weeks ago. I’d argue that if these are so easy for you then its you who has their FTP set wrong.
1 Like
Yes, a couple weeks ago.
Maybe the ramp test is a bad protocol for determining FTP.
8 Likes
Just asking. Do not want to post another statement that ramp test is bad protocol for estimating FTP for some (or many) people. Yes - it is very convenient but not good at its job:)
1 Like
Extended period of time for ftp is not 16mn… more like 35mn+. The fact that you are able to perform fairly well at the higher intensity is irrelevant. Depending on your physiology, they might suit you better and allow you to do the intervals higher than the arbitrary 120% of ftp. Ramp test might overestimate your ftp exactly because of this, see the relevant thread.
But I reiterate: best indicator of performance is performance itself. You are not able to sustain 16mn at ftp and your reaction is “I don’t think the problem is ftp setting”. In other words, you put a ftp setting, at which you are not able to perform longish steady state intervals, without your hr raising slowly to its max and without the quick lactate buildup after few minutes in the interval which is the definition of ftp (and not the hour power). My conclusion: your ftp setting is too high. Not much, probably 3-4%. But still too high. Just fact.
I never said it was easy. It is hard work. But I can complete the 2x16mn without issue. I will find out on the 5x16mn if it is correctly set. But I know what 40mn+ intervals feel like at FTP. And I am fairly confident the feeling I had during the 2x16mn at the end was where I needed to be for the intend of the workout.
8 Likes