Polarized Training Discussion (Fast Talk podcast & Flo Cycling podcast)

Training
101

I’m definitely more of a slow twitch guy, and these easy rides in traditional base only make me hungry by the end. Same for the long club rides, haven’t done back to back rides recently, but I’ve done plenty in the past. My experience with semi-structured and structured training only goes back 3 years since getting back into road cycling. Hoping to gain some insights from this discussion.

I just finished SSB1 mid volume, and am now in third week of traditional base 1. Here are my last 2 weeks of SSB1 mid, and first three weeks of Traditional Base from a moving time point-of-view:

02%20AM
02%20AM1668×1712 260 KB

Just curious if others routinely exchange TR workouts for long outdoor rides on the weekend during SSB? I’ve definitely seen advantages to do that, and heard Coach Chad say the same on podcasts.

1 Like
102

I do only the low volume plans. Maybe I will do some long slow stuff on Sundays additionally.

1 Like
103

I think there is a solid chance that anyone will see some worth by adding in “long” rides. That may be in the 2 hour range for people who seldom ride that long. But is seems 3+ hours is best to get into at least some of the adaptations mentioned via the POL method.

I think adding a long ride around every 2 weeks could benefit many riders. And that may be particularly relevant for people with events that will run that time or longer.

2 Likes
104

I know that figure was stated on some of the podcasts, but I just looked at my last 22 weeks (when I started polarized training), and my weekly averages (computed over 22 weeks) are as follows:

Z1 = 8.24 (73.8%)
Z2 = 1.18 (10.6%)
Z3 = 1.75 (15.7%)
Total = 11.17 hrs/wk

For context, I’m 55 years old with just a little over 2 years of training, so it doesn’t seem that hard to get 15% in Z3. Now, I probably took it to more of an extreme than some i.e. instead of “bucketing”, I also tried to polarize my group rides when possible - tried to pull in Z3 and recover in Z1 whenever possible.

105

Thanks much! There was no judgement in my question i was just trying to figure out what I was missing given the multiple challenges with the lack of clarity on this approach.

Ultimately I was just trying to figure out if I should try that way or stick with what I’m doing now. I’m coming back from some injuries and really want to focus on my aerobic base. I also do keto ( will add carbs when intensity moves up). So my plan is to do traditional base then move into sweet spot base in January. But I like the idea of 80% low intensity just bc it seems easier for me to do long low intensity vs the hard stuff.

106

Been reading along with this thread over the past few days - very interesting stuff. Thanks for all the thoughtful discussion from everyone.

I think this is one of the key components of base regardless of if you’re following the polarized or more traditional TR methodology. Even if you are doing SSB (regardless of volume) I think most riders will benefit dramatically from occasionally swapping in some long easy rides.

I’m also very interested in the outcome of your experiments here @mcneese.chad I think for where we are in the northern hemisphere seasons I can see myself most closely aligning with this methodology during base and build (which is where we are now) but I think I’d really struggle with adopting this when it comes time to specialize.

Have you, broadly speaking, mapped how this starts and where it would map against the traditional BBS timelines? I’d love to see it compared to someone on a similar timeline doing the other model.

1 Like
107

I felt no judgement whatsoever. :smiley:
I recognize the curiosity as I shared it from the beginning of this whole process, so I am happy to try and lend perspective when I have something worthy to share.

I think this POL method is interesting and potentially the “right” option for some athletes. However, I think the SST method used in the majority of the TR plans is quite appropriate for many athletes. It capitalizes on known results from specific training that aims for the most efficiency of training time. Get the work done in a shorter time at the mid-level intensity (largely SST), but still include high and low intensity when appropriate.

I think they strike a good balance that suits the large group of us with 5-10 hours per week to train. There are pros and cons to any method. That can and will vary from person to person via physiology and prior training history. As such, people should try some things if they feel their current direction isn’t yielding appropriate results.

But I think one of the key things to consider, and I expect to be a focal point in the TR discussion (based on hints from them), is that CONSISTENCY in training is likely MORE important overall than the particular method employed. A training plan is only as good as it can be if you follow it.

If we miss workouts entirely, over or under perform, or choose too aggressive a plan for ourselves/life/history, we stand to miss out on the real potential of ANY plan. I’ve said this elsewhere, but “The best training plan is the one that you can actually follow”.

Nate and others have shared their experience of over-indulging in the High Volume plan, thinking that “more is better”. It might be for some people, but if that plan can’t be followed, it is likely to dig a big hole. I made a similar mistake at one point by playing in HV and stagnating. I find the Mid Vol plans are more manageable for me and actually yield better results when I actually stick to the plan and nail the workouts (vs HV and under-performing).

So it seems we may be focusing our efforts on details that could inhibit or even harm our progression. But I think everyone should be willing to consider these all in context of their experience and adjust as needed. We are similar, but also unique in just enough ways that we should recognize that any predefined plan may need some level of adjustment to best suit our needs.

Sadly that takes some experience and a bit of research to make proper choices. But TrainerRoad does a really good job of being transparent about the decisions and background that drives their choices in making the plans. Then they add to that with the podcast and other support (like this forum) to share as much as possible so we can all learn and make better choices.

Sorry for the text bomb, but I was flowing :stuck_out_tongue:

7 Likes
108

Its a fair question. I think the motivation of the people on this forum is to find the training program that will deliver the best fitness for the kinds of riding they plan to do.

The TR Sweet Spot approach certainly works - evidenced by the gains and performance people see on the TR plans. And the polarized model also works (see the articles below if you want to read more on this).

So the question some of us are asking is which approach might be better for us (some maybe because of a specific experience motivating the change, some maybe out of curiosity) - and as a result, some of us are experimenting with the Polarized approach to see. Similar to @mcneese.chad , I have a long time before my A-race next year (August 2019) so I have the time to play around a bit. If POL works, great, if not, I can revert to Sweet Spot.

For you, if you are happy with the results you are seeing from Sweet Spot Training, then no real reason to make the switch.

In my mind, I don’t have much confusion about the polarized approach. It can take a while to sort through some conflicting/confusing statements you might hear/read, but I think Chad has done a great job for us in doing that in his spreadsheet. The biggest change for me in POL vs. SST will be in A. reducing the intensity of my outdoor rides and B. Adding some lower intensity endurance sessions on the trainer (instead of just doing higher intensity stuff).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237096628_Does_Polarized_Training_Improve_Performance_in_Recreational_Runners

4 Likes
109

Don’t be fooled :slight_smile: POL is also hard - see Chad’s experience above with his 4 hr ride and resulting DOMS. Also, POL still retains high intensity interval workouts.

2 Likes
110

There are corollaries in a lot of other areas. The optimal plan isn’t the optimal plan in theory, its the one you can stick to consistently through ups and downs. Training, diet, investing and many other realms are like this!

4 Likes
111

Completely agreed. I just meant that more time is spent at low intensity vs high. It’s all hard to me in some way ( intense and short vs less intense and long) , if the two , the latter is easier for me to execute consistently.

Thx all for the feedback , I’ll continue to watch and observe but stay in my original sst plan.

1 Like
112

Yup, both methods are “hard” but in different ways. SST spends more overall time in the “higher intensity” areas, and thus may feel a bit more taxing overall. I think this is extra apparent in a mental sense because the strain of those workouts and overall frequency can be a real chore. It is for me at least.

I think it’s wise to take a wait and see approach, especially with the prospect of learning more from TR’s brain trust and how they see the overall picture.

113

Hello Chad,

Why @Nate_Pearson, @Jonathan and @chad have not jumped onto this training method is beyond me at this point!

Thus it is you we are rooting for to come up with a Plan for us!

Stop following up with every thread and get on with making a Plan for us! :wink:

114

Right on the money, Steve.

Kind of the “all things in moderation” point of view, if you stretch that ideology a bit.

115

@sryke and others I don’t think it’s so much about caveats as it is about the fact that zone 3 in the polarized methodology has a wide range of intensity associated with it. So does zone 1 actually (from just above resting heart rate through to LT1) . Zone 2 for most people will have the narrowest range. This zone 2 typically entails “tempo” runs or rides which have time and time again been shown to have a relatively high stress but little impact on physiological changes compared to anything in the other two zones. Hence it is often referred to as the black hole of training. This is especially true in the running world where “tempo” often seems to reign supreme.

One of the other things to remember with Pros is that they generally are not just doing a single day event. Most are doing stage races. Seiler’s and most other researchers investigations are with Olympic endurance athletes. This is a very different animal.

@trpnhntr has also hit on an important point further to what @mcneese.chad has already mentioned and that is that long endurance rides in training will benefit almost every athlete, even those doing sweet spot base training. @chad has mentioned numerous times that the SS plans are based around the time crunched rider and that adding additional time in the saddle if it’s available will almost always be beneficial. Especially when it comes to economy and efficiency.

Over 20 years of working with our Olympic program almost every system and zone has been thrown at athletes at one point or another in their career. BUT that’s the luxury of knowing that we work in quadrennial planning and aiming for an A event every four years. These athletes also have the time to be able to put into any type of training thrown at them.

Finally, to reiterate a point made a number of times in this thread is that polarized training is not as black and white as what most envision it. The intensities have huge variations throughout the training plan and is changed throughout the season. Almost all of the 7 zones that most people are familiar with are trained during an annual plan of most athletes using a polarized approach when we look at the intensities.

@bbarrera to answer your question I think quite a few people change the SST plan to include a long ride or two. I most certainly do for myself as well as any athletes I work with. The TR plans are not meant to be something that fits everyone and the idea is that they provide a base to anchor training (much like finding our FTP to anchor our training) but it should be adapted to everyone’s needs and training environment. If you feel you have the time and that longer rides would be beneficial, then adding them in would be prudent.

One additional thing since there were more posts in the time it took me to type this. Keep in mind, research like that which @DaveWh and others have posted is that we often don’t know two things about those athletes in the testing. 1. what does “well trained” mean and what system they were exposed to previously and 2. if they are well trained then they are likely exposed to a periodized training program and we don’t know where they were In that periodization plan and what they have been previously been exposed to. As mentioned previously, any program will work with almost anyone at one time or another if it’s adhered to consistently. @stevemz and @mcneese.chad mentioned it’s the consistency that counts more than almost anything else. Consistency is almost always what subjects in these studies receive!

I can definitely understand the confusion that is out there regarding methodologies and It can be daunting to decide what to apply to yourself. I find it much easier to determine what the Olympic athletes I work with need for planning and periodization but despite having been an Olympian, have a way harder time determining my own needs and often find myself second guessing how much dosing of each intentsity of training I need. My own confirmational bias leads me down the higher intensity interval road because those are what I “enjoy” despite knowing that longer endurance work is what I really need. I just don’t enjoy it as much so have a tendency of avoiding it. It might also have something to do with the fact that sitting on my saddle for long periods of time is more mind numbing than I can bear at times. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Just realized how long of a rant this was so good on you if you have made it this far. Otherwise my apologies.

11 Likes
116

I am quite certain they have very good reasons for their choices (if history and their transparency is any guide). The workouts and training plans presented are no accident and I am confident that they have a proven track record of success internally as well as experiences shared from active TR users.

I am not second guessing them in any way other than personal interest in trying something different after 3 years of happy use with their plans. I had tremendous success this year with strong performances (lots of PR’s) and some event wins throughout the season (with full plan and rebuilds in use). The plans and training work for me, and they are even better now that I know how they are meant to work and the slight adjustments that help them suit me better.

But as with anything, you don’t learn without trying. I doubt I will have any earth shattering results or conclusions, but I hope to gain some insight on the impact on my body and needs.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I do not feel prepared or educated enough on this matter to really offer specific advice for others. I have spent too little time in this arena compared to so many others that I don’t think I’m “the guy” that should be offering that type of instruction.

I am planning a thread to track my current status and some progress with this test. But it is far from scientific and a grand sample size of N=1, so I doubt it will be very valuable for others beyond general interest and a general option that they could consider.

4 Likes
117

Awesome point. One thing we sometimes forget is that the original plans in most areas included a long (2.5+ hour ride) for the Sunday ride. TR made wholesale change to SST versions (as the default workouts) that are meant to capture most of that payback, but in less overall time.

  • (This was very cool to hear in the progression of the podcast from Nate’s first mention of the idea, to the actual implementation and reasons described by Coach Chad when they made the change).

Coach Chad acknowledged that change to SST would yield most of the desired adaptations, but not necessarily all of them. To that end, they still include the option to do a longer, lower intensity ride for Sunday. That is captured in the “Week Tips” and the “Week Description”. It’s usually in the last sentence and here is one example (Pulled from Week 1 of SSB 2, MV):

  • “You’re welcome to substitute a longer aerobic endurance ride for those Sweet Spot intervals–try Boarstone in place of your Sunday repeats.”

It’s not that they don’t see the benefits from long easy days, but they made a calculated choice to focus on the time-crunched aspect, which likely applies to the large majority of their users. So choose as appropriate for your situation. I would suggest trying the longer option if and when you have the time. That’s true even if you can only do it once a month, as I feel there are still gains to be made at that frequency.

3 Likes
118

@mcneese.chad an awesome and succinct summary of what was behind my thought process on my reply. I was already long winded on that post and didn’t expand on it further but yr response ties in the main points of why and how one might add longer rides to SST👍

1 Like
119

Tag team :stuck_out_tongue:

Gotta dig the interactions like this.

Man, I love this new forum.

1 Like
120

@Lawrence and @mcneese.chad - thanks for the feedback!

1 Like