As far as I know you can’t
Ugh… I was afraid of that. I’m a big TR fan but they really need to get the multi sport stuff sorted out.
Just to confirm my belief I created a quick Plan Builder plan. From calendar view, I can click on the note at the beginning of a block and can change the volume of the block (i.e., mid vol sprint to high vol sprint), but not change it to Polarized, or any other base/build/specialty block. Unfortunately, multisport is not a priority and it will probably always be way behind the cycling options. For me (as a triathlete) the calendar is mostly pointless to me since I would have to manually click “complete” for swim/run/strength workouts, and swim/runs don’t sync to my watch. Maybe someday…
I haven’t seen anyone mention it, but it’s interesting to have heard from podcast 307, that Jonathan is following one of the new TR POL plans right now.
It will be interesting to hear his thoughts and comparison to all the other TR plans he’s followed over the years.
Does he though? His Strava does not really show that, or he’s taking a lot of liberties with it.
It appears that he actually started on May 3, so only in his first week at the moment, and it’s not even complete yet. I haven’t dug into his Strava feed to analyze his rides vs what was scheduled.
It’s not just that. The Polarized plans are still experimental plans and I don’t believe they are available in plan builder at all.
Has anyone had any experience completing the 6 week HV Polarized plan? I was just looking through my upcoming weeks and am a little concerned about one progression in particular
The jump in the threshold workouts (by default scheduled for Friday) between week 3 and week 4 seems very dramatic to me
Week 3 has Dutton - which is 3x16 at 100% FTP
Week 4 has Shumard Peak - which is 4x16 at 102% FTP
If you’ve completed these, did you feel that the progression in both intensity and interval count was reasonable? I would usually expect one or the other.
Essentially - going from 3x16 at 100% to 3x16 at 102% FTP or going from 3x16 at 100% ftp to 4x16 at 100% FTP.
For what its worth, this is a progression level jump of 6.3 to 8.1, or 1.8 week over week.
I imagine once AT starts to handle these types of plans, and is released to everyone, this type of thing (as well as the final week workout of 4x16 at 104%) will be adjusted but the defaults here seem very ambitious to me and I’m curious if anyone has tried them yet and how it went
Based on the all rides for Shumard it seems very few people are succeeding at the workout, which isn’t at all surprising to me but its hard to say if it is the progression or the workout itself
Anyway - kind of hoping for some feedback from people who’ve completed the plan, and maybe a review from someone at TrainerRoad to see if they need to dial that one back a bit
PS: I think there’s a separate discussion about whether or not Hueco (4x16 at 104% and approximately a 0% success rate per the all rides tab) is even possible with a correctly set FTP in week five of a progressive overload training plan - but for now I’m more interested in the week 3->4 progression
Found that very interesting and I’ve heard it said before that long term year on year progression of VO2 max is about the volume of low intensity rides. It’s a shame he didn’t list the weekly volumes of each year in the progression from 53 to 74 mL over the 3 years. Just how much volume did he need to jump 40%
I experienced the same with the mid volume plan. The progression made sense until week 4, and then the last week 5 workout at threshold was brutal:
week 4: 4x16mn 100% FTP with 8mn rest
week 5: 4x16mn at 102% FTP with 3mn rest
The combination of over FTP and lower rest was deadly. I think a more logical progression would have been in week 5 either 4x16 100% FTP and 3mn rest or 4x16 102% FTP and 8mn rest
Call me a cynic but I really can’t see him coming back and saying it was as good or better than the TR plans he’s spent the previuos 306 podcasts persuading people to use…
A couple years ago he did use traditional base when coming back from injury.
I just finished the 6-week MV polarized plan. The workouts are not exactly the same as the HV plan, but there is a similar progression in the threshold workouts:
- Week 3 - Mount Grant - 3x16 @ 100%, 8 min recovery
- Week 4 - Deseret - 4x16 @ 100%, 8 min recovery
- Week 5 - Bartlett Peak - 4x16 @ 102%, 3 min recovery
For me, Mount Grant was doable and Deseret was challenging but felt within my ability. Bartlett Peak just about buried me – I completed it but it was one of the hardest TR workouts I have ever done, and I was still feeling the effects a couple days later. I agree that the week 5 workout’s long intervals above FTP and short recoveries seem like a departure from the logical progression of previous weeks. I’d be interested to hear TR’s rationale for this brutal step up in the threshold workouts.
Edit: I like the intensity of TR’s other plans and usually look forward to my workouts, but have found that my aging body needs a bit more recovery than the MV plans allow (turning 53 soon). I tried the polarized MV 6-week plan to see if it fit me better, and for the most part I think it did. But I won’t be repeating the experience until the threshold progression is a little more tame. For now, I have changed to an LV plan-builder plan with extra endurance volume to get 6-8 hours/week.
Yeah - that’s essentially the same progression as the HV plan between weeks 3 and 4. Not surprised it was too much
I was dying for these plans to come out, but when I saw the workouts and the weekly increases, I quit and decided to wait for the plan once lots of people have given feedback and the modifications have been made. It might just be in my head, but there is no way I believe it’s possible to do 4x16@102% with a properly set FTP. I am destroyed after a 20 min ftp test. I can’t imagine doing four of them in a row just because they at 4 minutes shorter.
After I finish the 3x16 at 100% FTP I’ll decide about the 4x16 at 102% - I kind of want to give it a try just to see. If I feel ok after the prior workout I’ll probably give it a try
To be fair - a 20 minute test number would be something like 105.5%, not 102%. So they aren’t quite asking that you do 4*(20 minute test number).
I tend to think the 4x16 at 102% is possible, although possibly only with an easy run-in, and not in the fourth or fifth week of a training plan. I don’t think the 4x16 at 104% is likely to be possible regardless of preparation, but who knows.
My overall feeling on this iteration of the Polarized plans is that they start too easy and finish too hard
4 minutes is a very long time!
I’ve just started them and this too threw me off a little but we shall see!
If I recall correctly from when TR rolled out the plan and explained the 4x16@102%, this assumes that your FTP has grown over the previous weeks. So although it states 102% of your FTP, it is expected that your FTP from the previous test is actually higher. In theory being that you’re in effect at/below 100% FTP. Now whether that is the case is another story.
Yeah - I presume that’s their assumption as well - but I spend an entire season trying to grow my FTP by 2%, so assuming that level of growth is definitely a bit optimistic for me
My ramp test this morning put me at exactly the same FTP as when I started the polarized 6-week plan. That aligns with this weekend’s congratulatory email from intervals.icu reporting that my estimated FTP had increased by 1 watt . My experience is just one data point, but it fails to support the expectation that the first 4 weeks of the plan would prepare me for 4x16 @ 102%.