Probably. Does not seem to be as popular a topic as polarized or sweet spot though - 10 posts in this thread vs. 100s in this one 
That’s because most people are just looking for a shortcut, and haven’t really thought things through on their own.
4 Likes
Yaaasss! All ditto for me. Pre-2019 I never did any real aerobic development rides; full send only. 
Started doing long Z2s in 2019…ugly. And now, esp after my last big slow-n-low block…brings a tear to eye.
How it started (15% Pw:Hr) :
How it’s going (0.5% Pw:Hr) :
I finally did it! 
:
Very agree. Maybe part of it might be that a lot of TR users are new to cycling/structured training so the first couple of years of THRS+VO2 heavy plans will be well received. After that…? As well, perhaps not all users do a full 3-part plan. Many reasons for lack of burn-out, but just as many reasons for burn-out.
:
Totes. Once I stopped following the TR “SS” Smashfest and doing more easy volume and less “entertaining” intervals, I could do much higher quality intensity sessions when they came around (vs slogging through 4x week). I too also saw better performance on less intensity/more recovery. I’m probably kinda sorta a Couzen Quick Responder.
Wondering for how many TR users that 4th “hard day” is more detrimental than beneficial?
4 Likes
Remember Seiler says that you can totally do sweetspot and threshold work in a polarized training model. Just you have to go deep. So 3x20 with 2 minute rests @ftp would count for an intensity day.
1 Like
Others have said this, but just to be clear, I meant never faster as in never progressing, not as in never faster than anyone else.
Or, maybe, always have a purpose.
This is, I think, where the dogmatic interpretation of Polarized does it more harm than good. There are lessons to be learned from Polarized that can apply to Pyramidal or any other ‘model’. You could, for instance, build yourself a very robust plan that maintains some benefits of a Polarized model while getting very close to the Pyramidal distribution - essentially, a sustainable, robust Polarized plan. 1x Threshold, 1x VO2, as much base as you can schedule. Your zone distribution will be more base heavy than pyramidal strictly wants, more Seiler Z2 heavy than polarized wants, but maintaining some of the benefits of both. Not to say an approach like this is perfect, or would work for anyone (myself included) - I lay it out only to highlight that you don’t need to take the exact prescription of any of these models to have success
Crushing it! I’m around 1.9 power/HR right now - not sure I follow the % you have laid out, but going from 0.15 to 0.5 is massive
Is there a cut off on polarized? Say I have 10 hours a week to train, which is the best option to get the highest ftp or could both work
Seiler calls for doing the 4x8’ at 110% of your 40min TT power…yes that is a VO2 workout. I think anything over 106% of your FTP is considered a VO2 workout.
What if doing 3x20/2 SS isn’t “going deep”? Last week I did 1x60 @ 90% at my MAF HR.
Perhaps why POL athletes were observed doing only minimal work in Z2, it contributed mostly fatigue than anything else (upper threshold is part of Z3). Doing mostly Z1 work can give the same results as doing Z2, but with far less stress & fatigue, which would only interfere with truly “going deep” Z3 work.
What’s to follow? 
And 15.0 to 0.5 
…I even had a few 25%! 
Yeah, my heart def loves the long Z2 buffet!
Limiting days of intensity to 2/week made me recalibrate what I thought was a “hard” day. Previously, I was absolutely falling apart at 28-32 mins @ VO2 max per workout (GBHV). With less frequent days of intensity, I am now doing 45+ mins at VO2 max with higher power, same HR, and lower RPE, which I didn’t think was possible 8 months ago.
To give some TR-specific examples, I did Bashful +6 barely hanging on and puking at the end of the intervals 8 months ago, then was down for the count for nearly a week afterward. Switching to polarized, I’m doing Elephants +2 with another 7 min interval tagged onto the end for nearly 50 mins @ VO2 max intensity in a single workout, and I’m able to to do it twice/week for a month straight. In another phase, I’m doing Galena +3 twice a week, whereas previously in SSBHV, I would be falling apart after the third (or fourth or fifth) day in a week with intensity.
This may seem somewhat arbitrary, but I have been able to rack up more time-in-zone with this approach than smaller, more frequent intensity days, with more hours/week on the bike sustainably. To say that a polarized approach requires an 4:1 workout distribution and only VO2 max intervals demonstrates at best an incomplete and at worst a generally poor understanding of the approach.
2 Likes
One might not need to do any Z1 rides if the main purpose of Z1 is ‘recovery from hard days’…just sleep more! However, it’s probably a good bet that a decent amount of Z1 is required to stress the aerobic system enough to cause adaptations.
As for Z3 being “only” VO2 intervals…well, Z3 is technically ~100% FTP and above, and technically VO2max zone is ~105%-120%, so…most of Z3 work will be of the VO2max variety.
Yup. POL isn’t as easy as it looks on paper, esp with larger hours/week. Those hard days are hard - e.g. 2hrs of VO2 intervals. As you stated, it’s possible a lot of riders don’t quite nail a proper approach and/or distribution (I didn’t in my first attempt). Your experience seems to be inline with common POL experimenters.
But that’s precisely Seiler’s published definition??
See above for the numerous times these circular statements have been countered, including in the middle of the quote you used there.
I’m just going by the published literature. Since polarized training is supposed to be science-y and all, I figure that’s the only valid way to approach things. Otherwise, it becomes a religious discussion.
ETA. 
Seiler himself is not that strict when he speaks in the multiple podcasts he participates in. The 80:20 or 90:10 (based on time) is more an indication, a guideline and not a strict rule. He also said in some podcasts that you can do threshold works as part of that 20%.
This is exactly this. Z1 shouldn’t be overlooked as developing a strong aerobic system is key for endurance sport.
The main message from Dylan and Seiler is that it would be beneficial to do more Z1 work (Seiler zones). I saw that multiple times in this forum that low intensity is to recover or because you cannot handle more than X intervals sessions. NO, these long endurance rides have a purpose.
This should be interpret as a general rule of thumb on how the training should be balanced. Not a training prescription to blindly follow.
2 Likes
I saw an interesting Video (unfortunately in german) that I found quite interesting, especially the different effects of volume and intensity for runners.
The video was based on this study:
If I get this right, runners ran 15% faster in races, if they did 64km/week instead of 32km. → 10km more equals 5%.
Tempo runs made and intervals made a 3% difference.
So, if your schedule allows more time in the saddle, this would be more beneficial for longer endurance events than intervals. Of course YMMV, cause it’s individual, +periodicadtion, training age, etc.
So it’s a bit captain obvious, but I found it interesting to see numbers that quantify the differences between volume and intensity.
Volume is king.
2 Likes
Negative. That’s a basic Seiler guideline, not a hard and fast rule.
Just going by the published literature and avoiding a religious discussion?
Yes, I try to avoid discussions that aren’t fact-based.
1 Like
We’re captive on the carousel of time