I disagree, but now we’re back to the “what is polarized” discussion, and I’m spent on that one. 
I think the only point I have is, regardless of protocol, you have to use what you have. Just like Rocky punching slabs of frozen cows, if all he has is a mountain bike trail, then he can get something at least resembling polarized training from it if he tries. Might not be ideal.
My original questions wasn’t really adressed here, but ok. I’ve decided to skip the tuesday 45 min pol Z1 ride, as i’m on the bike in the evening for 3,5 hours anyway, going mostly easy.
I just looked at the polarized plans and noticed there have been changes made to the workouts included compared to a week or 2 ago. Curious to see if it will be discussed soon on the podcast.
I just started a polarized style training plan. But will be using train now for the VO2 type workouts, it will be a fun experiment at the beginning of the year. I don’t plan to really be at peak until october, because then #crossiscoming. Also looking forward to my “training camp” in 3 weeks in the south of Spain
I think you’re seeing different workouts in the plans simply because with AT when you click on a plan it automativally gets tailored to your PLs. I’d bet that if both you and I looked at the exact same plan right now we’d see very different workouts suggested simply because of our training history - thats certainly happening with the standard plans and I suspect with Pol as well.
oh… 
That would make sense though, pretty darn cool…“the machine”
Yup, we confirmed with TR that you are seeing tailored training plans based on your current Progression Levels when you view them.
Your version is not likely to match any other person’s unless you have identical PLs.
That is awesome. Thank for the info “not coach” Chad 
another bump for this thread. Still waiting for a new Polarized edition of the podcast.
Has anybody found a way to find the VT1/ LT1 / Aerobic threshold somewhat accurately with a TR workout?
I’m thinking a step test with longer intervals in the endurance to tempo zones and tracking heartrate?
I have done ramp tests in a cycling lab in the past where it was calculated, also taking bood lactate measurements and having 6 minute ramps of 30 watt.
Or is using the Karvonen farmula sufficient to get close enough?
Ha ha, makes me want to have a go at it!
I’m going to swap to the polarized plan, because it enables me to do most of the z2 workouts outside. Also I’m training for endurance and ultra endurance events in the summer, and need more miles at a lower intensity, while still keeping the high intensity in there, (like TUCO) 
I follow HV plans and swap out Sundays for long z2 and weather depending MTB on Saturdays. This leaves structured intensity indoors on Tues/Thurs. Recovery rides Wednesday and Friday outdoors as well as the weekends and it works out really well. I’m training for Ultras as well, doing five MTB 100s this year as part of the NUE Series.
I’m not fully up to date on the podcasts, but has Jonathan ever given an update on his attempt at the POL plans? I remember hearing he was going to give it a try.
I’ve used them for different phases over the last ~two years with results that weren’t astounding but also not bad in any way, but my personal experience is not swaying our analysis of the effectiveness of a strict 80/20 implementation.
We’ve been analyzing these all along and plan to share data on their effectiveness in the future. Lack of adherence was a major block in getting reliable data last year, but with more data this year we hope to resolve that.
Keeping everything in perspective, there is a VERY small amount of research out there looking into the effectiveness of polarized training, and there isn’t a large and well-structured data pool to be able to effectively analyze its effectiveness, so this effort on our end is unprecedented in many ways. We want to make sure we do it right.
On that note, I wanted to mention something about sharing data on polarized plans. One thing I’ve learned particularly over the past few years as we’ve been testing and iterating on AT is how much more complicated data-sharing is than it seems on face value. It’s very easy to take a cursory glance at data and confuse it with being a comprehensive representation.
Additionally, there’s plenty of opportunity to slice the data in whichever way confirms a narrative or bias. We have systems of checks and balances with fantastic people in place to make sure we never make that mistake. I’m sure our approach would infuriate a lot of marketers, but we aren’t everybody else. Integrity is everything to us, because if athletes can’t trust us, there’s no reason for them to sign up.
So we plan to share data on these plans in the future, but we will do that once we have solid data that is responsibly pulled and interpreted.
Hope that helps provide insight for y’all.
Thanks Jonathan, really appreciate you jumping in with a comprehensive reply and the additional info on data sharing.
Random question from a POL-user: Is there a reason why some of the workouts (particularly the VO2Max workouts) have extremely long cooldowns? Veladero, for example, has a 27 minute cooldown at 50% FTP.
I use the mid-volume POL to get a reasonable-looking progression of VO2Max and Threshold weekday workouts. I dump all my endurance work into the weekend.
I’d be curious about this too. My guess is the added time was to hit the 80/20 split of easy/hard.
Hi Jonathan,
Have been looking for evidence about Trainerroad’s plans. The website advertises with ‘science-based planning, training and analysis tools to increase your performance’ but cannot find the references. Your comment seems to imply that there is a very small amount of research for polarized training and a convincing volume of research for TR’s other training plans.
I heard from, I think it was FastTalk podcast, that usually coaches and top level athleats figure out the best way to train and usually it’s before the training method is proven scientifically.
I was hesitant to try polarized training and thought that SS is the way to go, but at one point I was stuck in my training, constantly tired. Since last autumn I have tried to polarize my training as much as possible - although it’s probably more pyramidial training now, but that’s because of the type of events I’m training for.
So far I haven’t felt burned out and my numbers have never been better. Of course I have modified TR polarized plans quite a lot. Also I’m not counting TiZ rather sessions in Zone.
This week is recovery week for me and it’s only Z1 (3 zone model) riding (commutes to work and back + some longer loops) totalling approx 8-9h.
Usual training week is 1xVO2 max; 1 SS/threshold session and the rest is Z1.
I have tried to increase the overall time on the bike (10-15h) and I think this is the main reason I have seen my number grow.
To me it doesn’t seem likely that top level athlets use SS method because if you ride 20-30H a week you just can’t hold the intensity and to recover at the same time. Of course I might be wrong.
I also agree that POL isn’t for everyone. Same goes for SS.
Not to be pedantic, but how are you defining “SS Method”? That is, assume I ride 3 days a week, how many of these would need to be sweet spot, for this to be “SS Method”? Same if I train 4, 5, or 6 days a week.
Or asked another way: what does the training breakdown (based off of what? Session goals? Time in Power Zone? Time in Heart Rate Zone? Something else) need to be to qualify as:
- Polarized
- Sweet Spot Method
- Something else
Fast Talk Labs had a recent podcast where they talked through the above, and how there is no standardized definition of “Polarized”, or even how you figure out if what % of your training qualifies as what.
80/20 is referring to # of workouts, not time in zone
so 1 out of 5 workouts is hard, 4 out of 5 workouts easy.
Time in zone will be less than 20% (90/10 or 95/5 is often the case)
I heard that podcast as well. One point what was made is that’s very difficult to base your training only on HR. Main reason being that HR has lag in it and that gives an impression that you are spending large part of your training in HR Z2 while based on power ones you are polarised.
For myself I have divided training sessions based of power zones.
And the number of hard session is based on my goals.
For example: at the moment I’m training for couple of ultra events (430km race, Apidura parallels, and 1500km self-supported bikepacking race), that means that if I do 5 rides then 1 of these is VO2max, 1 hard tempo/SS, and the rest of them are easy but/and long rides.
The point of temp/SS training is that since I do long solo rides and try to do them as fast as possible then tempo is the main zone I ride in during the races. Most of the SS workouts are 90% FTP for long time spent in that range (3x20min, 4x15min, 1x60min etc). After that tempo rides doesn’t feel that difficult.
As I said I used to do TR MVSS plans.
During base there was 5 sessions a week - 3 x SS, 1 threshold and 1 endurance.
Sustained power build - 2 x VO2max, 1 x SS and 1 x threshold, 1 endurance
Rolling road race spec. - same as the SPB.
Again this is based on my own experience but sweet spot training that TR has left me “burned out”. In the beginning it was OK but after a while I wasn’t able to recover from all the near FTP training.
At the moment I can do my hard sessions with full power while the easy ones are truly easy.
- I have raised the total volume and feel fine.
When I look at my Intervals.io data most of my weeks are pyramidal but that’s because I have replaced one vo2 workout with tempo workout.
Again I’m not saying that this is the only way to train, far from it. This is my own experience. I think that everyone should find the best solution that works for them.
Currently my FTP is 300+
As you can see there are 3 distinct levels that stick out.
Endurance comes from 4+ h easy long rides.
Sweet spot from long SS sessions like said before. ( I joined the team called More Sweet Spot in TR).
And vo2max comes from 2-4min vo2max intervals.
The levels are recalculated after FTP estimation.
Here’s a week from before the estimation:
