The points on individual variation are interesting. I’d hate to be one of those zero responder types. And from posts on the forum, we do see a few people that claim they can’t get their FTP to rise no matter what they do.
It could also be that the best endurance athletes are the ones who respond to volume and maybe it doesn’t matter that much for the rest of us chumps. 
I dunno, will start with asking the question has anyone actually read the Time-Crunched Cyclist book? It should have come up in the context of the first topic discussed on this podcast. At least in my mind, this book and CTS are the driving force behind the popularity of time-crunched plans for people with 8 hours or less to train. In that book it is strongly stated time-crunched fitness gains are short-lived, and that athletes with more hours would benefit from a more traditional approach.
Around 29 minute mark Seiler avoids answering a question on if there are other ways to get adaptations that are obtained from 4-5 hour ride. We know that there is, but it is in the Seiler’s grey zone, and the question isn’t answered directly (instead talking about cyclists having 5 hour races, and vo2max peaks years before the elite regularly podium). Around 35 minute mark the coaches from Canada position tempo as being part of the 80%, in the context of riders with under-developed aerobic base fitness. Ok, yeah, right, jump on the polarized bandwagon with double-talk. Around 45 minutes the topic of micro intervals like 30/30 are dismissed in favor of longer intervals. Other researchers have shown 30/15s to provide better adaptations versus longer vo2 intervals, but Seiler doesn’t see it. And at ~57 minutes Seiler defers to Stoggl/Sperlich in reference to pyramidal distribution. At 59 minutes Seiler asks “at some point we are going to have ask if there is something special about cycling.” Stoggl is brought up again, and then Seiler digresses to rowers and goes back to speculating about cyclists. Continuing to paraphrase, FastTalk asks “do you think there would be benefit from cyclists going more polarized?” And Seiler replies I’m not saying what cyclists are doing is wrong, rowers race for 7-8 minutes, XC skiers for up to 2 hours, and cyclists have to get ready for longer races. Whats dangerous is that cyclists can be doing middle of road and thats the risk. Cyclists can be smarter. Ok, so he starts by saying cyclists aren’t wrong, but then basically backs away and starts preaching “be smarter” and go polarized despite the fact that leading up to this he doesn’t claim to have data on cycling and that other researchers do have that data. Haven’t finished episode 51 yet, but it seems to me that on the question of cycling and empircal data, Seiler defers to other researchers. And despite that he can’t resist preaching polarized for cyclists.
One concept that seems to be missing from the polarized discussion is muscular endurance. 
I really do appreciate Seiler raising awareness about vanity FTPs and how some can burn out from too much intensity (go read Time-Crunched Cyclist!!!). While Seiler values empirical data, he doesn’t really have that data for time-crunched cyclists. Companies like CTS have been on the front-line coaching 15,000+ ambitious time-crunched cyclists over the last 20 years. They have real-world empirical data. And that data shaped the CTS time-crunched plans which include 4-6 week recovery blocks between phases of the plan.
Ok, here is my thought process:
So to be honest, at that point I’ve lost interest and don’t care what the research is saying. Because in my mind the speaker has lost credibility on the topic of cyclists. And therefore every time I read or listen to speculation about time-crunched cyclists, I turn to the Chris Carmichael Time-Crunched Cyclist book because they explain the what and why, and provide various off-the-shelf plans based on empirical data from over 10,000 coached athletes.
So my answer to your question is to recommend picking up the Time-Crunched Cyclist book, and benefit from CTS real-world lessons learned and best practices.
The only coach I know at CTS is Dylan Johnson, as I watch the YouTube videos he puts out. He seems to take a more polarised approach. Tends to prescribe 2 hard sessions per week and the rest zone 1/2.
I’ve listened to a few of the podcasts with Seiler and find folks are far too hung up on the 8 minute intervals or working at a certain % of this or that. It boils down to the old saying, make your hard days hard and your easy days easy. If your hard day is a 40 minute sweetspot interval, then that’s fine. Just don’t ride tempo every single session.
As for being time crunched, the amount of time some people spend on this forum, myself included, I wonder if we really are that time crunched! 
Very well put.
No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stopped listening and turned to a more valuable source of information on helping me periodize and plan a season. Not particularly interested in hearing about a time-crunched week in isolation. If you tell me Seiler is giving an actual plan, and not just an example week, then I’ll fire up the podcast app and finish listening. But as stated above my go-to will be actual coaches that have well developed “whats worked and what hasn’t” periodized plans. When it comes to a week in isolation, have to admit I really like Dylan Johnson’s three videos on How to Get Fast on 6/10/15 Hours a Week. So much so I bought a FasCat base plan and am trying that right now, while trying to figure out my plan for a build.
And yes I have some of Seiler’s papers in my virtual library and reference them from time to time, particularly when looking at “Seiler intervals (4x8)” versus “Rønnestad intervals (30/15s)”. I don’t have anything against Seiler, or his research.
When I got back into cycling in 2014/2015 my sister sent me the book Base Building for Cyclists by Thomas Chapple, published in January 2007. That and the Friel blogs posts and books formed my early opinions on the value of building an aerobic base. On top of that three years ago I used Chris Carmichael’s time-crunched program to deliver my best season ever. That said I’m a big fan of Coach Chad’s traditional base (as-is) and sweet spot base1 (some mod required) plans.
ha ha my defense is a little flexibility afforded by my job… I spend all day sitting in front of two 24" monitors and a 15" MacBook Pro, its easy to multitask the forum into my day while on a work call and I’m only required to actively listen and takes notes during parts of the conversation.
come and spray the lawn in my backyard! We are going dry landscaping and I’ve got a 6 hour ride tomorrow 
Another $20 if you help me finish cleaning up the olive and fruit trees
@Captain_Doughnutman and the bonus is you can do the club century tomorrow and make friends with 60+ like minded cyclists 
There are times to ride more SST, times to ride LSD, times to HIIT and times to take a break. This whole notion of SST vs. polarized is an academic circle jerk.
But doesn’t there have to be only one right way to improve?
Not just right, but the BEST! 
If there’s bounty, I’ll swap you 10lbs of wild arugula from the clear cutting I have to do in my own garden. 
Have fun on the century. I wish I could be there and show everyone how to lead from the back like a pro! Every train needs a caboose, right?
I think you nailed it in this post.
Bang on. 
I know, this Polarized-vs-Whatever-TR-does discussion is very exciting, because no one wants to waste a single minute in trainer hell. Especially when time crunched.
But maybe we need to accept that there is no single most efficient training method that fits most of us.
This magic formula simply doesn’t exist.
Dan Lorang said, when asked about Polarized training, that this is nothing important to him. He prescribes, what his athletes need and are able to handle in that situation, to what they respond well, with the longer term goals in mind. That can be polarized or something more muscular endurance focused or something completely different.
For me it is mostly a question of what I want to train. During winter ssb mid vol with longer rides outside is perfect for me. If I had to do LSD on the trainer with only few percent of HIT, that would be boring as hell.
60-90mim of intervals is just fine.
Dan Lorang is training high level athletes. He has the advantage of unlimited time for his athletes and an unlimited budget. They can do lactate/Inscyd testing every 4-6 weeks and then design a custom training program based on testing. Steering:
And if you looked at all of his athletes I’d bet money on you seeing a very polarized distribution.
It would be awesome if someone developed an easier/cheaper way to achieve similar results as Inscyd testing. I have a feeling that this is truly the way to go if you are serious about getting as far as you can in the sport.
How much you want to bet
Every dollar you have (crosses arms)
