TWO THINGS to note: 1) I oversimplified and misspoke in the video when trying to give a quick clarification on the 3 zone model: Zone 1 is everything up through (what we typically call) lowmid Zone3 n a 7 zone system (right around 77% FTP), and then Zone 3 starts just a touch over FTP. Yes, I knew this, I broke it down too simply; doesn't change my point. Sorry about that. Meant to add a graphic; didn't. 2: One other thing that I cut from the video but I wanted to mention: Sweet Spot Base is a... base plan. Typically, it seems like many people do grow their FTP during SSB, but much of the increase also comes from build plans. So when looking at the intensity breakdowns near the 6:30 mark, SSB part two has the majority of intensity in SSB (SSB I is the 'intro' if you will,) and then Build really ramps up the intensity. Now, is that the most optimal? Not necessarily, as the rest of the video acknowledges. But want to clarify that SSBII and Build contain the higher intensity stuff.
Polarised Training is training under t1 and over t2, zone 1 is not recovery zone. Don't be silly please. As fitter you are as higher %ftp is included in you t1 range. Pros ride polarised because even tempo pace or sst (by Coggan model) are under t1.
One big problem in these debates is that there is no standard model for the number of training zones and ways to demarcate the boundaries between, either on a population level or for an individual, by both coaches or in papers published by exercise physiology labs. Take for example this simple question: "What is FTP and how do you measure it?" Even the two guys (Allen and Coggins) who wrote the book popularizing it disagree. So it's always helpful to accurately describe the training zone model you are using and try to translate others to that.
@@2K00L2BTRU3 Exactly! Cyclists with a robust endurance base have an LT1 power that is a higher percentage of their 'FTP' or TP (in XERT) and likely have a higher fat max wattage. So when they ride endurance pace (zone 1) - that would be Zone 3 (Coggan) or grey zone for athletes with less developed aerobic fitness. Developing this base takes time, is healthier, avoids burnout (both muscular and ANS) but the long term results are worth it.
Great video! Glad you’re keeping the discussion going. If you get a chance check out my polarized vs sweet spot video. I had the same criticism of that study in that video and I addressed it by citing some more relevant research where the threshold group did do zone 3 work as well.
Thanks for chiming in man. Like I said, we don't spot on agree, but it's always good to put 'established' things to the microscope with science. There's enough bro-science and anecdotes in the sport as is. 🍻 I'd say we should get a beer together sometime, but I can't hang with your massive watts. 😅
I would start with saying the basis that polarized is really easy (z1 on the 4 or 6 zone models) so flat wrong. I don’t think the scientific community bases the polarized model on that nor do the pros - huge difference from really easy to Z2, like most of Dylan’s rides.
Sorry, to be clear, I understand Zone 1 in the three zone model which is used in the studies to always be up to LT1 which can be up to 75% or so if FTP (if you even believe in that over LT2 or Anaerobic TH) which means that upper Z1 in that model is real effort not the noodling easy pace which is used to discount polarized anecdotally. Watch the TR podcast which came out recently with Keegan Swenson (who doesn’t seem to do SS) and he’s talking about doing lots of (most) rides at 270-280W for 5 hours and similar to DJ his HR is definitely Z2...this all points to sub-LT1 riding. It seems like the basis of discussion is based upon Zones (and hyperbole about the zones, eg zone 1 so easy) which are very disparate based upon the model and that the crux of the argument is being missed (or avoided). At any rate, rant over...
Yay!!!! THIS is how you have a discussion people. You give credit and you counterbalance points with other options and facts. Justin and Dylan both make great points. What they don't do is attack each other or discredit anyone following one approach or the other. That's beautiful
Thanks for the video, I think you offer a very balanced view on the topic. Maybe I over-simplify, but I think eventually it boils down to "consistency beats perfection." TR may not be perfect, but if it keeps me consistent and engaged, that is all I need. The same of course is true for Zwift, Sufferfest, etc.
I don't think that's oversimple at all; miss a workout or two a week from any 'perfect' plan and the gains are gone vs something you actually stick to.
I agree with your assessment; as a Master's athlete (53) I've been asking TR for a Master's plans for years. I don't know any 53 year old cyclist who can do 4 -5 intervals sessions for 3,4 and even 5 weeks straight.
I don't know anyone at any level who does 24 sweet spot (basically low threshold as TR defines it at 88-94%) workouts over 5 weeks other than TR athletes doing SSBHV.
Started following Dylan year or so. Got a power meter and started to push it hard on hard days and real easy of easy days. Breaking all my Strava PR by 15-20 seconds. Ride easy 3 days a week and 2 hard rides most weeks. Am actual 10lbs heavier due to Covid eating, yet stronger on the bike. Thanks to Dylan!
Hey buddy, I thought your comment on endurance training for 2 hours indoors a struggle was spot on! Anything over 90 minutes inside is for me is like watching paint dry!
Just dreadful right?! Not exageratting when I say that those ~65% rides are some of my least favorite. Another part I cut from the vid, but if I lived in a hot place and could ride 65% for hours a week with friends just chilling out and loving life on a bike, throw in a fast / hard ride or two a week, OH MAN, I'd probably be POL 100%. That sounds great. For me on the trainer staring at Zwift or music? Pretty blech.
Ugh seriously. I decided to take on TR's traditional base mid volume plan to start my year off. I'm about halfway through the 2nd phase and my rides this week are 2:00-2:45 and it's absolutely dreadful. I was hoping to do the longer rides outside, but Texas decided to play Canada this week and we got 8" of snow and ice.
I have weaned myself to sometimes prefer 2-4 hour rides on the trainer as it spares me the time to watch these training, vlogs, listen to TR podcasts and 1-2 movies on Netflix. My regular day does not afford me the time to do this. Also my outdoor Z1/Z2 rides seem more stale and sometimes dangerous.
Amazing! I can't do it often. I've done a 3.75 hr once and it broke me. I'm eyeing the Zwift Uber Pretzel Saturday but I don't know if I have it in me😅
Amazing Justin. Been following your content silently across YT, TR forum, and event Reddit but this video made me a 100% fan. I like how you can boil down complicated topics by isolating and talking about the objective facts first, but you also have no problems folding in the personal/subjective stuff on top of the logic to show us how our emotions can lead us to different conclusions. I hope those who are getting bent out of shape over this debate can put this technique into practice. Actually, the thing I liked the most is your explanation of the bell curve. It seems nearly all arguments stem from the fact that people are either unaware of where they are on the bell curve, or that a bell curve even exists, or they have an unreasonable expectation on fairness in regards to where they stand on the bell curve. This SS vs Polarized vs DoingAnything really comes down to picking what's best for each individual's circumstances. We can't put a measuring stick to our lifestyle and throw it into a formula to produce an optimal plan, so the simplest solution is to listen to our own hearts and do what it already knows. What everyone else is doing or telling you to do, are interesting considerations, but should be respectfully ignored if it isn't compatible with our lifestyle and goals. Lastly, I think it's interesting that other communities like rowing has had a pretty long-standing understanding that "Polarized is the best longterm; Sweet Spot is fast, efficient and works great too but not the best". Maybe Seiler being a a prominent figure over there has something to do with establishing that culture.
Heyo! I really appreciate it! I don't ever claim to be perfect or the most knowledgable, but at the very least I try to facilitate a discussion that trys to skip the biases. Of course, we've all got our own perspectives and such, and that's not a bad thing, but trying to at least start with an objective piece to build off of has been really helpful to me when I've learned things too. I really find it useful when people explain things to me like, "Here are the facts, and here are my opinions as someone who's interested in this a long time, but here are some other things that people think too. Now, go live your life with that info and build your own conclusions." I've developed a bit of a pet peeve (beyond just sport) when people answer a "What's the best...." question with anything other than some more questions, because I've found that in so many cases, there isn't really a best, just a best for the situation. Anyway, that was a ramble, but I really appreciate your comment! I think it's been within the last 6 months that I've started to make more of the type of content that I've wanted to and has been kicking around in my head. I'll only ever make videos as long as people find it useful, so I'm happy that it is. 👍
Cheers, good summary. I really liked Dylan’s post; I’ve used TR for a year and am enjoying the whole package. I do low volume so for me I’m happy to have three sessions a week of TR structure and I can coast my real world low intensity commute. I did feel that one of the recent TR vids probably pushed Dylan into responding but he’s brought up a lot of fair points that TR will hopefully respond to. They certainly have the infrastructure that they could relatively easily compare the improvement of people on a three times a week sweet spot plus their own getting to work etc stuff plan with three times a week 40;20 sessions plus the commute stuff. They have a gold mine of training outcomes on real subjects. Personally I hate my over under sessions on TR but think they have benefited me and,will continue.
I agree, and for now, am continuing in TR. Their plans are good-ish / enough for me with my knowledge to use them as a base to edit and build upon, and their periodization planning is more work than I want to put effort into building out. I also hate O/Us, but lately I've changed my mind into feeling that the Spencer-esque workouts are the hardest. Brutal.
Great video. One thing to note is that you actually can customize your training plan. You can select/deselect workouts from your subscribed training plan and choose an alternate workout from their workout “pool” based on what type of ride you want it to be (aerobic/endurance/anaerobic/active recovery). This is something worth mentioning. As Dylan either didn’t know or omitted it as well.
Good clarification. Thanks! And I agree, doing over 90 mins of zone 1/2 is really hard on the trainer. I think this is partly why TR structures their plans as such - to keep people engaged in the training.
Thanks for the video and I think you present a generally sound analysis and counter-argument. I've watched both the Dylan Johnson video you reference, as well as the "polarised vs SST" TrainerRoad video with Keegan Swenson that Dylan seems to have been responding to. Your definition of the 3 physiological zones is a little bit off - the model is based on the ventilatory thresholds/LT1 and LT2 so Z1 in the 3 zone model is not simply "recovery" as you state, it includes work in traditional "zone2" from the 7-zone model (endurance/fatmax riding). FWIW though, I do agree with your general analysis that the comparison between POL and THR in the chart Dylan presents from the study is flawed - the chart is more presenting data to answer "does including Z5-6 intervals in a training bout boost endurance performance during short term interventions" and the answer as we already knew is "of course it does" - the makeup of the rest of the training zones during the intervention is largely irrelevant in this context. Its also worth noting that (a) training periodisation normally leads to different training approaches depending on your training phase (eg POL during base, THR during build) so its not a "one approach is better overall"; and (b) LSD/Z1 riding and Tempo/Z2 volume over time continues to scale fitness over time more sustainably than intense Z3 (vo2max) efforts which lead to short-term benefits (seen in studies) only but soon max out in terms of benefits.
Absolutely, spot on, and thanks for expanding on that. It's always a struggle for me to balance pithiness with accuracy, so I appreciate the expansion and clarity. 👍
Dylan crushes it on the bike. He not only has the science but the results. As he says we often go too easy on are hard days and too hard on easy days. That is the take away
Yup - absolutely... so many of my buddies do this all the time and have to race each other every group ride ... hilarious. Then keep moaning about being on a plateau! 🤣
It seems like years ago I read about studies that compared cyclists who had done traditional base training of LSD before power intervals vs. cyclists who skipped the LSD and did nothing but power intervals. It's a little foggy but it seems like the LSD group had made more fundamental changes to their physiology in more efficient oxygen uptake and energy production. Does that seem familiar to anyone?
Great video And agree I get bored very easy indoor riding Tr may not be perfect but it has me following a plan and I think that is important Not everyone gets gains the same way
1 thing that complicates things is the fuzzy frontiers between zones. When i do what i consider a Z2 workout, depending on the metric (power vs HR) and system (zones, name of zones, website that processes the zones), i may be doing something easy (Z1 in a 3 zone model) or something medium (Z2 in a 3 zone model). Ditto on hard efforts. I thought that doing threshold work was hard (holding 8 or 10min @FTP or just above or just below WILL wear you out, it is a hard workout, and I cannot do more than 2 or 3 of these per week), HOWEVER they can be counted as Z2 in a 3 zone model, although they definitely feel like the hard side of a polarized approach. So, unless you're doing a REALLY easy workout or efforts you can't hold for more than 3-4min, then you're in some grey zone that has as many interpretations as there are people. Layer on top of that the reliability of FTP values (a ramp test seems to consistently overestimate FTP values off traditional / longer steady intervals), and you have fuzziness all across the belly of a normal curve of efforts. I use / have used garmin, zwift, xert, intervals.icu, and zone info & names from the likes of Dylan Johnson, Joe Friel & more, where someone's sweetspot's someone else's tempo, or threshold.
Something that Dr. Seiler has pointed out, that I think gets overlooked often, is that training below VT1 elicits different physiological adaptations than training above VT2, and that the idea that time-constrained athletes should reduce zone 1 training, and do mostly zone 2 and zone 3 training will lead those people to miss out on important training benefits. This is especially important for triathletes, since in a race that is half Iron distance or longer, we will spend most of the race at the boundary of zone 1 and zone 2 (assuming a 3 zone model). Thanks for another great video.
That's similar to the Slowtwitch "BarryP" running plan too; in short, extremely short, very easy runs with high frequency until you're able to run longer at VT1. Of course, just anecdotal, but people seem to report great results if they hit the consistency.
How are you characterizing the threshold group as doing JRA power or type of riding? Based on the avg interval power and their pre/post 40kTT power used as a proxy for Z3, they are doing SS/threshold intervals
Thanks. I'm glad you made this. I watched dylans video. twice actually and would flat out call him out on referencing a study that has zero zone 3 saying its a TR plan. That's not a TR plan. TR is actually way more pyramidal overall and becomes polarised during the speciality phase.
Sort of, but it's kinda a crappy implementation. It doesn't actually restructure the plan at all, it just moves everything down. One of the main values of Plan Builder is that it plans around your events. If you use the Push Week, it doesn't actually update your plan to reflect your events, it just pushes everything down a week, which is basically useless if you are training for events. You basically have to just delete your whole plan and make a new one backdated to a whenever you started your first. It's really clunky.
@@yetiman72 Everything is easy if you know how to do it. The point is, they don't account for that and it takes knowledge to know what week to 'clear.' The ability to adjust a training block for missed workouts is a pretty 'expected' feature, and their implementation is lacking.
endurance level training is not easy recovery trianing, but is in the three zone model in zone 1... Going over Zone 1 in this model alerts your endorcine and autonomic nervous system and thus gives you turbulance to recovery and fatigues you and have affect in the performance of other life aspects and can spiral to have negative affect to your overall health. Everybody should aim to be fit and healthy, Zone 2 in the model includes everything from tempo to threshold. What ive seen from the plans in trainer road i agree complitely with dylan.... maybe the low volume plans are little better as they have some HIIT / Zone 3 in them to complement the ZZone 2 work.... i would go for those every time if have to use TR and then add more Zone 1 work to really lay down the foundation and give enough exercise to mitochondria level respiration. thats where the longetivity and health gains are made. in the 5/6 zone model at the zone 2, so in the 3 zone model its the zone 1 higher end, the "endurance" work....
Got my Bachelors in Exercise Science a few years ago and we talked about this a lot. Man I hate threshold training, might be more engaging but it’s just worse in my opinion. Runners have known this for years you run easy or you run really hard, you only run in that middle ground when practicing race pace.
Yeah, I've really slowed my running down, spent years running at 'comfortably hard.' The key to that is I think running forums need to do a better job of communicating the Z3 / high intensity side of things too. I see so many people who only tout the 'run slow to run fast' line; at least for me, that just means I only run slow.
I think you hit on exactly what I was thinking when I watched Dylan's video which is that polarised training might be more effective but it doesn't make for an interesting motivational plan on a virtual platform. Dylan did s good video a while back about the workouts in Zwift and how they mostly seem to be a little bit of every training zone thrown together in each session. The reality is that people like variety of intensity because it keeps the boredom at bay. A training plan with 80% of the rides at a steady low intensity is boring as hell on an indoor trainer so who is going to buy that and keep paying for it? I'm a fan of the polarised approach and so I try to do as many of my easy rides as I can outdoors and get stuck into the intervals on the trainer but I would struggle with this method if all my riding had to be done indoors.
There is an art to riding an indoor trainer for long periods. I ride a lot on a spin bike for various reasons - the main one being that where I live there is one flat road by a river and that’s it. It’s about 2 miles long with a gazillion traffic lights tons of traffic and a lot of “ non bike- friendly” drivers. So I find a way to get through up to 4 hour training rides using music, videos and the like. To be honest the biggest issue I have is not boredom it’s bum soreness. I get out of the saddle pretty regular for 30 secs or a minute but it is still an issue. I would much prefer to be outside but I can’t get long Z2 (6 zone model) workouts done that way.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon Wow. With a good playlist i can get up to two hours or so, and the last half hour of that i spent questioning the meaning of life and my miserable existence 😂
Interesting take and I think you're right in your analysis. But so is Dylan Johnson (which you acknowledge as well). I think the big problem is when people do get recommended the higher volume plans and are motivated to keep at it, there is a risk of going too far. Generally there's the idea to 'trust the plan' since most of us aren't professional athletes or have a coaching degree. The plans are the next best thing. And it does seem a bit weird to be prescribing so much volume without adequate recovery while broadcasting a very popular podcast dedicated to finding the best ways to train. The problem there being that the authority of the podcast is brought over to the training plans/platform without the training plans being actually optimized according to the science. And I've read some people saying TR tried it the other way and people weren't doing the easy Z1* sessions and that TR is aiming for a +-70% completion rate on the plans. That means that they're stuck between a rock and a hard place in one way, but also catering to the bad habits of people in another. As with everything, keeping a critical mind and listening to your body seem to apply here too. Great video! *3 zone modelc PS: how confusing is all this 3 zone vs 5 zone conversion?!
Yeah, really nailed it top to bottom. One thing that I've wanted to stick into a video but never really found a time for is: I would like more of that podcast knowledge to 'exist' in the app. It seems like if you don't devote hours / week to the podcast, you're missing out on a LOT. The workout text is useful the first time you see it, but pretty quickly I think most people realize it's like 5 variations on the same basic theme. Useful for a bit, but then pretty bland. There is SO much great info on the podcast, and yeah, it feels like a lot of it is compartmentalized off. Also, spot on re: bad habits, and that's a SUPER interesting factor in the challenge of using statistical analysis to look at the training plans too: Let's say there's a super effective workout that most people don't do, should you pull that workout out? Should you or I be punished because our peers aren't compliant in their plans? Or do we prioritize the good of the aggregate even at the lost potential of ~20% of individuals, etc? It's a super cool discussion. And yes, the Zone 1/2/3 vs 1234567 is very annoying. I could have called it the first and second ventilatory threshold, which is the 'right' language, but that's even more things to learn. Blech.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon I agree on all points. And it's an interesting topic/problem for the indoor training apps. You need to cater to casual users, casual users looking to take their training seriously and hard-core users all at the same time. And in a way, most of the points raised are related to the latter two categories, which is where people can get pushed too far or start to look more critically towards the plans. The podcast at this point (which I enjoy listening to) seems very much an entity in and of itself. TR has a great resource there which it can into the plans. I have to say, I'm not a TR user, I use the Sufferfest, so I'm looking at this discussion from the sideline. Though there's been a tendency in The Sufferfest to move away from the hard intervals all the time. And I've been happy to see it. All in all with these apps, they're still bringing a lot of value to most people's lives through providing consistency and a framework around which to build your season or to get you through the winter in good shape. The only way is forward!
Not sure if anyone pointed this out by Z1 in the three zone model is not recovery, it’s anything up to 75% of FTP ie below LT1. So this can include recovery but also extends to endurance, or zone 2 of the five zone model. So it’s not riding 80% of the time at recovery.
I think the best point you made was the comparison to weight loss. When it comes to weight loss the best diet is the one that has a calorie deficit and that you actually stick to. TR does not just ask "if someone did this plan what is the outcome?" Instead they can ask "if someone is prescribed this plan what is the outcome?" That way if there are non physiological factors that cause a plan to perform poorly like that it's hard to do those workout indoors, or people don't enjoy them, or non-compliance is high for some reason then they capture that data. They have said this on their podcast a few times, particularly about their use of sweet spot (which is only in some plans, mostly high volume base) and their preference for the ramp test over the 20 minute test. They didn't think the alternatives were bad, they thought they were not effective because compliance was poor.
Exactly. If there's some hypothetical training plan out there that gets great results but only 10% of people can actually realize those results, is it the 'best' training plan? For some yes, for some, definitely no.
For some reason a number of my friends are all taken with reverse periodization. The challenges with all of this is you can’t go back and undo 3 months of training. Your point about investing 10 hours per week for 6 weeks was what got me thinking...that’s a HUGE investment for something that might not be optimized. What I thought was the most interesting part of Dylan’s commentary was that the polarization effect starts at around 6 hours. While it’s tempting to use HIIT 2 or 3 times per week and think that you’re recovered - the challenge of ‘just riding’ (and adding 2 or 3 hours in the middle zone/s) can very easily lead to overtraining.
A really important distinction, too, great point. And especially because it's easy to conflate 'add z2 (endurance z2 that is' and end up with more TSS, vs *replacing* rides with z2. Very different outcomes. 150TSS of Z2 is still 150 tss; that adds up.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon this leads to my ultimate question about reverse periodization (and I realize that’s not what this is about but it seems related) - there may be different optimal strategies for triathletes versus pure runners or even duathletes (like me). Mastering three sports may make the plateauing intrinsic to certain strategies tolerable in the context of trying to improve all three disciplines. In other words, if getting through a season healthy and kinda fast is possible it may not be as important to fully optimize across all the variables. I really like your point about adding 150 ‘easy’ TSS. And that seems to be why folks are talking about multi factorial fitness and adding a duration variable - a la Xert or Tri.dot
@@JoshuaParks One of my dumb joke lines is "Undertrained is better than over-injured." I've never seen a time where I'd chase an additional few percent here and there when risking being sidelined for days (if I'm lucky) to a week (typically) or weeks+ if I'm unlucky. But then again, this is just a hobby for me, I'm slower now than I was a year ago, and I don't get paid to win, so I don't need to take risks. Reverse is interesting, but I don't knw enough about the data to have a strong opinion either way. Also, you're now like the 4th or 5th person to mention Xert; I've heard of it before, but perhaps it's gaining traction in a way I should look into... I'm not going to swap plans altogether, but I'm always open to new things. And yeah, re: TSS to expand that a bit, I think it's easy for people on a THR plan to see POL and think, "Oh, well if I add endurance Z2, then my ratio improves, I can have the best of both worlds!" And then they end up with 30% higher TSS (even if the new TSS is relatively easy) and are even less recovered. I think TR can do a better job of explaining this too, because you can't 'chase' a POL plan by just adding in Z2 and lowering your ratio. If you're already near your limit of THR/PYR structure, then added Z2 is just additional stress. Not necessarily bad, but not automatically a POL either.
Dont forget your private life overall stress factors. In addition to stressful work or relations, SS trainings just tease your ANS pretty much. Polarized is safe to gain training time and adjust intensity when possible within training weeks not to burn out.
Nice video. I 100% agree with you on the flexibility of TR plans. As an older cyclist (47) I find that I start to fail sweet spot workouts around week 5. It's been suggested on the TR forum that masters and older athletes need more deload and to add this in, in the middle of a SSB plan. That's great and all but if using plan builder it ruins everything if you do that because, as you noted, it doesn't recalculate. Also 100% agree that TR has the data, hell they brag about it on the podcast from time to time, and should implement AI/machine learning to adjust your plan based on your results. Honestly my guess from listening to the podcast for years is that this is in the works and if/when they implement it I think it will be a great addition.
Yeah, age especially really seems to be a sticking point for SSB/Build plans. I see a ton of posts even from people a bit older than you (like 55+) who report that they just struggle hard with all the stress. Kinda like you said, if you deload and edit it yourself, great, but the whole point is that most people don't have that knowledge. I hope it's in the works too!
@@JustinDoesTriathlon I think part of it as well is my level of training. While I've ridden bikes for years I never trained in any specific manner. So 3 years ago when I started Trainer Road I was basically completely untrained. Now 3 years later I haven't seen my FTP move much at all but I can tell you FOR SURE that my FTP is more real than it was 3 years ago. I can now sustain power near my FTP for long climbs where I couldn't before. I think given another year I will be seeing actual FTP gains as well as being able to complete workouts deeper into their plans. As you say it's about consistency as much as anything.
Great video Justin. You do mirror my thoughts to some extent. I am one of those in the 20% range. I have alos had those frustrations when trying to move a whole plan a week or 2.
I don't think so. I know they say on the podcast that if you just miss one weeks it's NBD and hop back in. Okay, fair, but sometimes I miss more than that (hey, it happens.) Also broadly, I think I then start feeling like: 1) it should adapt and just rehash me out a plan, and 2) I think it's looking like right now, TR has effectively an agnostic take to all the training you've done previously. It feels kinda crappy to just delete my whole plan with the history I have in TR and redo it, but I guess it's moot because they're not looking at all that historical data to make a future plan anyway. That's a big huge opportunity.
Nice balanced summary thanks, though not sure i follow your point on not being able to customise or push plans etc. in the calendar ability to push / pull weeks, can amend plans once set and swap out workouts, make up weeks as you please from the workout library, or build your own in customer workout builder .. plus you can take the workouts outdoors..
Yeah I gotcha. Primarily what I think it should have is essentially a dynamic restructuring of workouts as a result of missed workouts, particularly if you miss a full week or more. As is, you can always add in your own workouts, but the plan doesn't account for things automatically. I'd like to see it be smart enough to adapt the plan to any upcoming events taking into consideration that you just missed 7 workouts, etc. As is, I've had to delete out base/build plans just to adapt things in the past. This is part of a larger weakness, though, in that TR doesn't use much historical data to drive future data. For instance, a person who has done 4 base/build cycles might (or maybe not, but they should use their data to decide) to shorten base and do more build, etc. Basically, I just want more dynamic planning.
I think you need both polarized and sweetspot training. Polarized training is for generating a huge aerobic engine which is represented by your Power@VO2Max; once you have that, you want to bring your Power@Lactate Treshold as close as possible to your Power@VO2Max which is accomplished by sweetspot training. Having to decide between polarized and sweetspot is a made-up problem when you can do both. Furthermore, if you hit the VO2Max ceiling, polarized training likely will not generate additional benefit. VO2Max is a glas ceiling, its height is determined by genetics; however, the utilization of your VO2Max (aka your FTP) is highly trainable; you can get as close as 90-95%. That is a lot, given that for example the ramp test assumes your FTP is @75 of your Max Aerobic Power.
If you listen to Dr Stephen Seiler, it seems the polarized model is over the course of a season or longer. Thus, much of the early season will not even get into higher intensity, while later in the season will have more. The polarization description need be accurate for every training block but fits when one steps back and looks at training from a longer perspective.
Yeah, exactly, and all the other contributing factors like cravings, long term sustainability, satiation, how you actually feel day to day, etc. Very complicated.
One thing that is always (as far as I know) omitted from this debate is: what is the magnitude of difference between the two approaches? Everyone makes their argument for which is "best," but is a polarized plan 2% better than sweet spot? 10%? 25%? This is a hugely important question. If polarized training is 25% better than sweet spot, then what TrainerRoad is doing is insane--almost everyone will have better outcomes with a polarized plan, regardless of workout preference. If it's only 2% better, then what TrainerRoad is doing makes sense: if their customers prefer sweet spot training, and are more likely to actually do the sweet spot workouts consistently, then then why put them on a polarized plan they don't like and are unlikely to complete? In the meta-studies that are cited to show polarized as the best plan, what is the variance in the results? Do the individual studies range from showing polarized plans are between 1% and 5% better than the alternative, or -5% to 5%? Again, this is sort of necessary to know how certain we should be about what is best. If the variances are high, and the certainty is low, then we should be placing much more emphasis on what works for each individual, and less on what plan is "best" for everyone. Let's say that we know with 100% certainty that polarized plans are 3% better than sweet spot plans. Thousands of randomized control trials with massive sample sizes have confirmed this: on average, polarized plans result in 3% better gains than sweet spot plans. There is no dispute--God has confirmed the findings. In this scenario, it's STILL not at all clear what plan any one individual should follow. The average result is just that: the average. It tells us what happens when a large population is sampled, but gives us little information about what will happen to any one person. The average hides the many people for which sweet spot plans work far better than polarized, and vice versa. Telling people that polarized is "better," in this case, is not very useful. If the studies showed it was 50% better, however... that's a different story.
Yup, hugely important. And then you can work that the other way too: If you're doing POL and life happens and you miss a high-effort day, is that whole week hindered so much that a slightly less effect threshold plan is more effective? It really seems to always come back to: They all work, and you just need to stick with something long term. It seems like a marketing race to find the absolute best best best extra best plan; how fit would I have been by picking the *worst plan* ten years when I started cycling ago and then riding the hell out of it every since? Probably way fitter than I am now.
Look into Xert. Someone else also mentioned it. I had this feeling the part of the video where you were asking for customization and adaptability and "AI" (in quotes because that term is so abused), you were asking for Xert. Even they're not perfect, no one is, but their whole plan adapts as you go along whether you follow their advice or not, and is working from a much fuller model of your fitness, not just FTP. All they require is every ride to be uploaded, vast majority with power, although if a few only have heart rate they can derive some stress metrics from it. Like I said they have weaknesses too, their model could stand to become a bit more sophisticated, doesn't seem to have changed in a few years. But it's a great tool, though a bit of a steeper learning curve to grasp the concepts, newbies can feel a bit lost.
Yeah, seems like it keeps coming up. I signed up for the free trial today and I'll give it a look through. Yeah, seems super complicated though... We'll see how it goes.
Can this type of training be split during (a) workout. 80% Z 1. 20 % Z 2. If so how many days a week should you do it? Or do you need to do 4 days at Z1 and 1 day at Z2 on a 5day workout schedule? Thx
first of all I think it’s supposed to be 20% Z3 not Z2 second, you can split it however you want. for example you ride 5hrs a week, 20% of that is 1hr exactly that means. you can have a day that you go ride for an hr, 30 mins of which you ride in Z3 the rest(warm up, recovery and warm down) in Z1, and you can have 2 days like that in your training week, or instead you can have 3 days when you ride for an hr, 20 mins of which you ride in Z3, the rest of the time and the week in Z1, or maybe even you can have 1 day that you just ride in Z3 for the whole 60 mins(you really shouldn’t though) so it’s completely up to you, try the different ways and mix it up.
@@alembiqueONE right sorry bout that z3 got it, I thought I heard Dylan talk about a 6 X 6 for an hour, from 87-92% ftp 6 min on with 4 min rest. X 6. Do you recommend ftp or higher, for how long ? would you mind giving an example. Thx
@@Nordviking8 can’t give you any example on that, sorry. i’ve only been cycling consistently for 6 months now and only been training with the HR strap. I don’t even know my FTP. right now I’m following a Metric Century training plan on garmin connect app(it’s free and I believe you don’t even have to own a garmin device) and my weekly training load looks about like 80/20 I would suggest start with that 87-92% range and see if you can do those 6x6mins if not, you have to reduce the duration of a block, number of those blocks or the power you’re trying to hold. remember if you’re just starting your training or getting back to it after a while off the bike you don’t have to do all those workouts(or you shouldn’t even). you should rather get to them gradually, no shame in taking it slow or riding slow.
Saw DJ’s video... I was thinking, "oh boy, that’s a fire starter"... pivoted over to TR’s forum and read some of the comments and it was a mixed bag... my only two cents is TR is still a young company, so they have room to improve... the fact so many people have opinions about them, pro/con, at least tells you while they’re not perfect (no company is), they’re services are valued and they’re flexible enough to adjust as they grow. I’m definitely looking forward to their next podcast that’s for sure! 🍻
Agree! It's a shame that it was AS contentious as it was; I mean, I obviously didn't agree with everything he wrote, but I fully support surfacing the research and chatting about it. Fact is, there's more than one effective way to train, and I don't think anyone should be so locked in on any plan as to refuse to want to look at others. I'm not going to be disappointed if TR doesn't magically switch to something altogether different, but absolutely, customizability is something that is a big win for everyone. Theirs is pretty light.
I just started polarized and dont mind it so far. I can do other stuff while riding on the trainer. But outside I might get bored. Interval sessions really kick my ass though
You pretty much nailed it. Thanks, Justin. The thing missing from the conversation is that TR has built-in, tight feedback loops: ramp test, compliance metrics, customer retention, etc. They are not simply crafting plans, selling them, and then hoping for the best. They are creating the best plans they can, gathering data, and adjusting. They don’t dilute their focus: subscriptions are the only way they make money. If they were getting things wrong along too many metrics (people not progressing, people burning out, etc.), it hits them where it hurts: the bottom line. That said, it would be a genius move if TR allowed us to opt-in to A/B testing or machine-learning driven versions of plans (e.g., polarized or pyramidal). They could use that data to adapt their plans or customize the training plan based on an individual's training response. It’s a little ridiculous not to be running these kinds of experiments when they should have all the machinery and a user base willing to subject themselves to training experimentation. USE YOUR KILLER ADVANTAGES, TR! And do it quickly, before we become more risk-adverse to experimentation as the return to racing nears.
Yep! Top to bottom. It's interesting that TR has sort of positioned itself as TR = Sweetspot training. I agree with what you sort of hinted at: They totally COULD offer other sorts of plans. There's no real reason that TR "has" to equal SS. Interestingly I think it might hit into that Paradox of Choice thing I talked about with the bike buying vid a few weeks back; give people too many choices and they get nervous. Give them ONE choice and say "This is the way," people take it and move on. I don't think it's as easy as "POL good, SS bad." I mean, even if POL is more effective in a vacuum, we know that in the real world, people don't always behave the same way. And of course, we also know that people DO get faster using SS. I think it's a good discussion to have, and I'm all for people at least being open to other options and keeping a big picture in mind. I hate to just 'hand wave' it away, but I'm mostly on: If it works for you, keep doing it. If it doesn't, change.
Super video. Based on my personal experience and what i see around me, I think a person just coming off of the couch might not be able to handle a polarized training plan, regardless of volume. Possibly pyramidal would be most effective to start and then over to threshold and then polarized. I think you need to have a good aerobic base to do polarized properly.
Great video. I really like Dylan's videos but I feel like any of the studies are difficult to trust especially if you look at the number of participants in each of the studies in the meta analysis. Trainer Road has some big numbers and with that some really good data to support the plans that improve FTP.
The TR data set has a massively disproportionate representation of untrained people. An argument could be made that ANY program would result in FTP gains when you are starting from an untrained condition. That is going to skew that data set as well.
@@whip113 - Do you think they could tease that data out? Or maybe break it up into multiple data sets targeting different sets of people to see what kind of workouts work best. The TR guys collect a crazy amount of data. Did you know that if you pause a workout that that gets recorded and they use that data to represent 'not really completing the workout successfully'? Crazy interesting stuff.
This studies are designed to get answer to questions, often use randomized samples of people (when it's possible), and give results with their uncertainty. The only thing you can put in doubt is the interpretation of the conclusions. On the other hand, you can guess nothing from the TrainerRoad numbers apart that on average, you should improve your fitness on the bike with their trainings (which are not a really helpful information).
Saw your edit, but I think you’ve still got the 3 zone model wrong. Z1 isn’t strictly recovery, includes what’s we’d think of endurance. Z2 is high endurance all the up to threshold, not over threshold. Z3 is threshold and above. The first study where it’s half Z1 and half Z2 sounds like what sweet spot base would be, if there’s no VO2 max work.
Ssb has intensity in the second half of it. And besides, SSB is a base plan; lots of people do gain power in it,bit it's the base part of the base/build/specialty order. Build had a ton of vo2 work in it
1 year further. TR has AI implimented in what I would call a beta version. Maybe worthy of a new video diving into it. It makes me consider switching from ''join' to TR and buying a powermeter in the near future.
Indeed. I've been kicking around how to do an analysis of it properly; it's somewhat hard to do because they don't release their methodologies publicly. That said, one of my good friends is a Ph.D. in data science focused on the application of ML to large data sets, so I think I'm going to work with him and possibly have him come on and talk about it. I like highlighting the real SMEs.
Excellent commentary. I'm personally a fan of Dylan and TR. While they have their differences, they agree on so much more than they disagree on. I also think a good part of Dylan's criticisms were based on misperceptions or a lack of understanding of TR programs. For instance, I just completed TR's mid volume sweet spot base programs 1 and 2 as they were originally designed. What many do not know is that these plans originally included a long Z2 ride on Sunday instead of another sweet spot ride. They made the change to a shorter sweet spot ride in lieu of the longer Z2 ride only because the user compliance was very low with the longer Z2 ride. They still suggest the longer Z2 ride in the weekly notes. Anyways, the point I want to get to is that my results with completing the mid volume "sweet spot" plans were text book "pyramidal", something Dylan has admitted as being every bit as effective as polarized. Dylan is far from alone in having such misperceptions regarding TR. Thus, it is evident at least in my eyes that TR shares some of the responsibility for such misperceptions or misunderstandings. Lastly, most any experienced coach will say that one of the biggest parts of their jobs is holding athletes back from doing too much. With that in mind, it is pretty much a given that a certain number of users will do more than they should and end up burned out or over trained with self-coached off the shelf plans such as the ones TR offers. TR has a long history of promoting their "minimal effective dose" philosophy in their weekly podcasts. While there is a limit on what TR can do to prevent people from over doing it on their workouts and plans, they could certainly do a much better job of promoting their minimal effective dose philosophy across their platform as a whole. Cheers.
Spot on, thanks for sharing. Your part about "A better workout that fewer people do" is a REALLY interesting topic to me, and also gets into the machine learning / AI video that I'm (slowly) working on. If there's a great workout that no one does, is it a great workout? Conversely, should YOU individually be 'punished' because your peers don't want to / can't complete a great workout? Where's that threshold? There's no clear answer. And yeah, Min. Effective Dose is certainly an element of TR, arguably even a marketing slant, but it can drive their training. Even zooming out from cycling, there's no one 'best' training anything; everything has compromises and other elements to focus on. Is high vol POL great at getting results? Looks like maybe so, but that's not the only factor.
I don't know enough to have a good opinion on it, but maybe others can chime in as well. I've seen it crop up more and more in comments, so maybe I should look into it
I used Xert for the last 2 years and I can highly reccomend it. It selects workouts for you based on your fatugue level and which phase of training you are in. The workouts themselves are adaptive and often based on reaching a % of MPA (MAX power available) rather than a fixed watts for a period of time. Your FTP is automatically calculated based on max effort workouts. It is super good for outdoor training using their iQ app on garmins or mobile phones which was the main reason I went for it. Just to have a change I am now using TR and for me the main difference is having your plan fixed day by day which can be a good thing and I so far enjoy. Im only a month in at the moment using plan builder on a medium plan. Because of the compressed nature of my calendar im straight into the build phase which seems to have quite a few polarised workouts. Mmmmm. Anyways .... Xert, definitely worth serious look.
I don't understand what you mean by it's difficult to move the plan forward? You can just click the week and click move forward and it bumps everything forward, I've done it multiple times when I've felt sick, had a busy work week, etc.
Yeah, you can do that, but if you have built your plan around an event or events, then it really falls apart. It doesn't do any sort of recalc, so your plan is now offset by a week from all of your events, which is arguably one of the best parts of plan builder (the seasonality loading/deloading/tapering.) the only way to fix that is to delete your full plan and then re-add it, backdating it to where you previously started minus whatever time; it's a real pain, and also gets into the whole part that they're not really optimizing based off prior training that you've done. Hopefully you shouldn't be needing to delete full weeks out of your plan THAT often, but just generally speaking, the ability to update your plan seems like something that is a relatively common need, and their current implementation is pretty basic.
I did trainer road for 4 days and couldn't get threw 2 out of 4 workouts on low volume. Would have been burned out in no time. My ftp trainerroad test matched what my zwift test. Do not sure why the workouts were so hard.
When Dylan talks about TR being too hard, he’s talking about the weeks, not individual workouts. In your case, the options are to drop the intensity by a few % or take short 10 second breaks. VO2max workout tolerance in particular is highly individual.
Awesome video as always mate. Thanks for your response. It is so hard to make a decision I can feel confident in within the cycling world. I'm completely lost
Yeah thanks for bringing it up! It's a good chat to have. My real opinion is that whatever you pick, just stick with it and you're going to see gains. There are little ways you can do better here or there, but finding something that you can stick with for many months or years is *by far* going to yield better results than whatever you complete only 2 or 3x a week, some weeks, because you hate. I think back to when I got into cycling in like... 2010 ish. Man, if I had picked even the WORST plan on earth and did it 4-5 days a week ever since then, I'd be incredible, right? So my point isn't that "It literally doesn't matter," but moreso: What are your goals? Do you want to be the absolute fastest possible? Do you jsut want to be able to go ride with friends, throw down some digs up hills, and just have fun on the bike? You want to be able to ride long, easily, and bike tour without feeling super tired? Work to identify those goals first, then look into whatever plans look like they support those goals that you think are fun, and then just stick to it. I mean heck, i just bought a mountain bike; MTB will arguably make me *slower*: time I spend on the MTB could be spent 'better' on the trainer. But like, I jsut love bikes. What's the point of getting fit if you can't enjoy it?
@@Bayo106 the 3 zone model is made by finding HR at VT1 and VT2. Unless you can establish that power at VT2 is FTP, then I don't think you can say this.
I think the issue on zones are not correct. It's up to around 80% of ftp for zone 1. He also does not dismiss zone 2 riding. The team UAE coach also spoke about the very same and even pro riders are going around 80% and then HIT... Also a s3cond point is that 80% of ftp is definately not an easy ride if you doing a 1hr tempo ride with a lower cadence etc So if you rising 80% of your rides in zone 1 and around 70% to 80% ... wow! One youtuber Jasper was also doing these rides for 6 weeks and I think he had a 30 watts increase. Sweetspot? I would say if you want to then 4 to 4 weeks in those 5 to 6 months prior to racing ... For the amount of time put into sweetspot and the result I don't think it's not worth it. There are better systems and proven to give better results for sure ... He also packed out the specific programs and the sessions per week. Dylan does prescribe threshold training. I think Trainer Road just got the combination incorrect in their mission to sell many programs.
Yeah! Though honestly, I'm not too impressed with myself. I've been following them quite a while and it seemed pretty apparent to me; the real challenge is the implementation of it. I don't have access to test it myself yet, but so far, it seems really impressive. But sadly, still no multisport. I get it, and it makes sense to solve for just cycling first, but one day...
''Plan builder won't prescribe you high volume until you indicate that you've done on average 10h a week of structured training for past 6 weeks'' Good I wanna see you start with structured training and after 1,5 months try to survive high volume, hell try mid volume 1 and come back to me after few months. I totally support Dylan's claims that those plans will lead to overtraining for most people. To quote TrainerRoad's own Chad Timmberman on high volume '' I recognized I wasn't going to be able to survive 5 weeks without completely breaking down so I did 3.'' I mean great that he's honest but he's admitting that the plan that they are selling is way too hard. I know we are all different but doing 3 SST/FTP interval sessions a week is too hard for most people in a long run....4,5 and more are just bonkers IMO.
Humans or any animal for that matter aren't supposed to operate for extended periods (30s or more maybe) at threshold intensity. In evolutionary terms it would signal that you are being chased by a predator! The CNS stress response is too high for beneficial adaptation. Zone 2 of the 6-7 zone model is basically a brisk walk which doesn't put any demand on the CNS. I guess this would be like the tribe calmly circling and cornering a bore (while the bore frantically runs around at threshold!) then sudden bursts of sprinting and wrestling with the bore would be your zone 5-7. I mainly jest of course but there is some truth there.
Hmmmm...if TR doesn’t do that “other unstructured sweet spot training” then doesn’t that imply that with the volume TR uses, you are even more bound to overtrain?
Very confused what you are trying to say here. TR has 3 levels of volume Low, Mid, High. Low keeps youy under 300 TSS while High will have you over 600 at times. If you don't have the time for recovery or proper nutrition that is what leads to burn out. That is why even if you want to do High TR constantly says do a few blocks of Low and see how you are doing and progress slowly to a High volume plan
Justin, I agree that there's a place for the type of stuff that TR does. I'm a user myself, but around 5 minutes in, you've got a pretty big error in your arguments. That study uses a 3 zone model - not 5. So those aren't JRA minutes. You're quite correct that there's no VO2 max efforts in there though, and that is most likely the reason for the decline. I think the best way to describe the difference between polarized and sweet spot/threshhold training is to say "polarized does a better job of helping raise your aerobic floor, sweet spot does a better job or raising your aerobic ceiling." So sweet spot does a better job of helping you get max benefit from 5-6 hrs a week IF you've got your aerobic floor in a good place. If not, polarized is a better option.
Yeah, I know it's a 3zone model (VT1/2), I just purposefully kept the explanation simply to avoid diving too deep in that. I sort of equate JRA with Z1/2, because that's everything up to just over threshold, which pretty much is how most people spend their time. But yeah, I definitely get your point. There's a lot to unpack, for sure, and there's no 'only this path' to success IMO. That's a sticking point I have with pretty much every plan that touts itself as the 'best.' Best for some, sure, probably not all in the real world.
Great video! I am subscribing you now! IMHO a lot of people are missing some key points here, and some studies too. 1 - The polarized intensity distribution is supported by Seiler much more in a workout by workout way than in a time in the zone basis. So it becomes more as 2 workouts involving a lot of work at or above LT2 for 8 workouts at or below LT1. Everybody seems to reason the concept by time in zone, 80% below LT1, 20% above, regardless of its frequency. Even this 80/20 principle can change quite a lot depending on the sport we are talking about. 2 - SS training and LT2 (FTP) training are not that different in terms of stimulus-response - see Coggan and Kolie Moore 3 - Seiler does not state that work AT LT2 (therefore including SS) falls into the “forbidden territory” so it would “count” as high intensity - of course then time spent there becomes a major factor - Coggan’s prescriptions on time at sweet spot are indeed crushing reaching 3 hours in a session for a pro cyclist So the demonization of SS by the polarized advocates (in which I include myself) is a total non sense. Having said this, I tried TR myself and unsubscribed it because it relies to much in FTP for prescriptions and there is too many intense days per week and I found myself digging a very deep hole in just 10 days… And I am not a beginner…
No offense, but hard to disagree with science here. SST will burn you out eventually doesn't matter how you approach it and it's more true if you're a master athlete. In a 3 zone model zone 1 include what we know endurance and low tempo zone and zone 2 include SST zone zone 3 everything above threshold.
Hey Justin. Dylan is not a scientist but he also knew not to alienate TR and the people who use it. The research data (done over the years by sports scientists and world class coaches) have determined the polarized training model is best: For amateurs, age groupers, olympians and world champions i.e., for everyone. So you're blurring the lines and casting doubt as to proper training and so are mitigating the TR and similar Peloton model; Neither represent proper endurance training.
You make a wrong statement at the beginning of your video. In research and Dylan's explanations, polarized includes threshold, and doesn't include sweetspot (80-90% ftp) work (on its own, no over unders).
This seems like a subtle plug for Trainer Road to me, in response to Dylan’s video. It is scientifically proven that going beyond 3 high intensity sessions per week does not induce further adaptation and can cause over-training. The is the problem with TR, imho. Too much intensity
@@markbentley4343 Ha, you're good man. I don't blame you for thinking it's a subtle plug. I like TR and their stuff overall for sure. There's definitely enough sponsored fake 'review' BS on UA-cam as is. I just like bikes. :)
I still don’t think anybody has really taken the “Big Picture” into account. It is so crazy to me that we’re debating Sweet Spot vs. Polarized. This is no-nonsense, because it is so obvious that high intensity training improves fitness faster than anything else. Why is nobody talking about the big picture? Doing 3-4 blocks of nothing besides aerobic/subthreshold work to chase adaptations, and utilize those adaptions to build fitness with high intensity training? I don’t think TrainerRoad has it right (way too many sweet spot workouts for their HV plan), but 0 studies that DJ referenced took the big picture into account. What would the results be if Group A did 12 weeks of base training, and 8 weeks of polarized compared to a group that did 20 weeks of the polarized block? The comment section is dictated/convoluted by people who probably haven’t ridden 10,000 lifetime miles, and TR and Dylan Johnson both aim their videos towards that crowd. People are completely missing the mark of the big picture for the sake of UA-cam clout...it just seems silly.
Broadly speaking, I think I agree. It's all about trying to get the most outputs for the least inputs. People in the 30s and 40s and 50s were ripping strong with barely any real scientific understanding. Just rode a ton.
@JustinDoesTriathlon Yep, nothing wrong with it either! The more the merrier. DJ has a lot of great info to offer, as well as TR since they’re sitting on massive amounts of data, but the Sweet Spot vs. Polarized debate will always be upside down until we look at a full year of training compared to a few blocks. Ironically, Seiler has some tweets from a few weeks ago where he talks about doing 1-2 hours of subthreshold to increase his durability. I feel like the correct answer is “There is a time and place for everything”, I’m just waiting on somebody to say it. 😅
@@ProfessorSteez Maybe I'll start coaching and charging tons of money and basically build out really complicated plans that are nothing more than "just ride a lot" but in very specific workouts. 🤣
You started with a uniquely weird definition of the three zone model and it went downhill from there. People need to read the studies and watch Seiler's explanations themselves - unfortunate how many UA-cam physiologists weighing in on training intensity will make this seem much more complicated than it is.
um..your definition of polarized is skewed. You do some threshold in polarized...just not that much. Also the bulk of training is sub 2mmol.or zones 1 and 2 in a 5 zone model. But 2hrs in zone 2 is not that much fun and can be stressful. In your 3 zone model you misdescribe zone one and two. Zone one is sub 2mmol of lactate. Zone 2 is 2-4 mmol of lactate
Nothing like a nerdy deep dive on data to get cyclists in a fit. 🤓 It's that and sock length. But I'm super happy he made the video, even if I don't agree with all of it; pushing people to have critical discussions about things backed by evidence is really important imo.
Zone 2 is 80-100% FTP. so quite a bit higher than recovery pace. Zone 1 is up to 80% FTP, so quite a big zone to work with. Includes tempo of a 7 zone system... Oh, you added a pinned comment about this, never mind 😋
You lost me when you said that the Threshold group doing ~1/2 z3 of Polarized (9% vs 20%) was taking away AAAALLL of their intensity.. that doesn’t really make sense! What I think many are missing when looking at this is that it’s % “Time-In-Zone” not % workouts.. if I do an AWC workout (Coggan z6) it is 75-80% z1 (warmup, cool down & recovery).. AND IS STILL THE HIGHEST TSS/hr workouts I do.. 9% Time-In-Zone z1 when You’re doing a BOAT LOAD of SST is A LOT of z3.. AND Dylan actually did point out the same problem with that study.. THEN pointed to another “more realistic one” where they mixed in HIIT.. polarized still won… My pet peeve.. you, Dylan etc.. why don’t you use TSS..??
It was intensity as self-reported by the participants before the study, VT2 and above (Zone 3 in a 3-zone model.) You can still do 'intensity' (which is up to Coggan 4) without getting above VT2 (Seiler Z3). I wasn't saying the POL group lost all intensity (quite the opposite, they went from 9% before to 20% after, more than doubling.) Rather, the threshold group went from doing a mix of Seiler 1,2,3 and moved down to only doing 1 and 2; We know that intensity is very important, and they lost theirs altogether. Re: TSS: I actually built out a sample POL plan using TR workouts that equaled 390min just for fun but cut it due to time of the video; it ended up being ~410 TSS IIRC. I like TSS overall, but it has its own limits too. TSS is a useful number, but not the only thing to know, and not all TSS is the same. 50TSS worth of effort at the beginning of a ride and at the end of a century are very, very different feeling, but they're both 'worth' the same.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon 1) Dylan actually ID’d same problem with that study and pointed to another more “realistic” one where the SST did more z3.. polarized still performed better.. 2) As for TSS.. TSS is correlated with adaptation, not RPE.. the fact that it’s harder to do TSS at e.g. at end of a workout or in warmer weather is irrelevant.. TSS is essentially the currency you pay for adaptation.. so if want to qualify how much you accomplish in a workout.. Training Stress IS not a number.. it’s THE number.
I mean, I'm not disagreeing about #1, and #2... You're definitely right overall, but from what I've seen, there are still some asterisks. You can do 50TSS of sprint and do 50TSS of CogganZ1; both the same TSS, but you're not going to stimulate the same muscle fibers (IIB vs I). I think I basically agree with almost everything you're saying, and I think both you and Dylan are right overall, there's just some asterisks.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon yup.. I agree with that.. the mix of where that TSS comes from matters.. but given a suitable mix.. the total TSS will be a measure of volume how much you accomplished…
If TR actively dissuades the vast majority of its paying customers to NOT use certain plans (the high volume ones) then they are useless to TR's own customer base and should be removed. The people doing that volume of training are not paying TR, they are paying for a personal coach and a unique training plan prescribed by that coach.
70 % of all studies can’t be reproduced by other scientists. Hence anything called studies are worthless unless they are replicated by other scientists. That said, most amateur cyclists will have the most benefit by simply having a plan. Polarized or not.
i'm at a loss to understand the purpose of this video. having just watched the video you are critiquing (thank you youtube algorithm), nothing you mentioned is in disagreement with what the other guy said, and what the evidence shows. he mentions that sweet spot training can result in improved performance, but he is talking about which approach is best. interesting video, but unnecessary imo.
TWO THINGS to note:
1) I oversimplified and misspoke in the video when trying to give a quick clarification on the 3 zone model: Zone 1 is everything up through (what we typically call) lowmid Zone3 n a 7 zone system (right around 77% FTP), and then Zone 3 starts just a touch over FTP. Yes, I knew this, I broke it down too simply; doesn't change my point. Sorry about that. Meant to add a graphic; didn't.
2: One other thing that I cut from the video but I wanted to mention: Sweet Spot Base is a... base plan. Typically, it seems like many people do grow their FTP during SSB, but much of the increase also comes from build plans. So when looking at the intensity breakdowns near the 6:30 mark, SSB part two has the majority of intensity in SSB (SSB I is the 'intro' if you will,) and then Build really ramps up the intensity. Now, is that the most optimal? Not necessarily, as the rest of the video acknowledges. But want to clarify that SSBII and Build contain the higher intensity stuff.
ah, didint notice this earlier when i replied a comment :) kudos! :)
It's no problem 🙂
Polarised Training is training under t1 and over t2, zone 1 is not recovery zone. Don't be silly please. As fitter you are as higher %ftp is included in you t1 range. Pros ride polarised because even tempo pace or sst (by Coggan model) are under t1.
One big problem in these debates is that there is no standard model for the number of training zones and ways to demarcate the boundaries between, either on a population level or for an individual, by both coaches or in papers published by exercise physiology labs. Take for example this simple question: "What is FTP and how do you measure it?" Even the two guys (Allen and Coggins) who wrote the book popularizing it disagree. So it's always helpful to accurately describe the training zone model you are using and try to translate others to that.
@@2K00L2BTRU3 Exactly! Cyclists with a robust endurance base have an LT1 power that is a higher percentage of their 'FTP' or TP (in XERT) and likely have a higher fat max wattage. So when they ride endurance pace (zone 1) - that would be Zone 3 (Coggan) or grey zone for athletes with less developed aerobic fitness. Developing this base takes time, is healthier, avoids burnout (both muscular and ANS) but the long term results are worth it.
Great video! Glad you’re keeping the discussion going. If you get a chance check out my polarized vs sweet spot video. I had the same criticism of that study in that video and I addressed it by citing some more relevant research where the threshold group did do zone 3 work as well.
Thanks for chiming in man. Like I said, we don't spot on agree, but it's always good to put 'established' things to the microscope with science. There's enough bro-science and anecdotes in the sport as is. 🍻 I'd say we should get a beer together sometime, but I can't hang with your massive watts. 😅
And what does Backwardhat Dylan think?
@@hh8384 BWHD is too busy trying to smash KOMs with his new ceramic bearings and "VO2 max only" training plan to care about this discussion.
I would start with saying the basis that polarized is really easy (z1 on the 4 or 6 zone models) so flat wrong. I don’t think the scientific community bases the polarized model on that nor do the pros - huge difference from really easy to Z2, like most of Dylan’s rides.
Sorry, to be clear, I understand Zone 1 in the three zone model which is used in the studies to always be up to LT1 which can be up to 75% or so if FTP (if you even believe in that over LT2 or Anaerobic TH) which means that upper Z1 in that model is real effort not the noodling easy pace which is used to discount polarized anecdotally. Watch the TR podcast which came out recently with Keegan Swenson (who doesn’t seem to do SS) and he’s talking about doing lots of (most) rides at 270-280W for 5 hours and similar to DJ his HR is definitely Z2...this all points to sub-LT1 riding. It seems like the basis of discussion is based upon Zones (and hyperbole about the zones, eg zone 1 so easy) which are very disparate based upon the model and that the crux of the argument is being missed (or avoided). At any rate, rant over...
Yay!!!! THIS is how you have a discussion people. You give credit and you counterbalance points with other options and facts. Justin and Dylan both make great points. What they don't do is attack each other or discredit anyone following one approach or the other. That's beautiful
Thanks! Yeah, it's just bikes, no need to get into a real argument. :)
Thanks for the video, I think you offer a very balanced view on the topic. Maybe I over-simplify, but I think eventually it boils down to "consistency beats perfection." TR may not be perfect, but if it keeps me consistent and engaged, that is all I need. The same of course is true for Zwift, Sufferfest, etc.
I don't think that's oversimple at all; miss a workout or two a week from any 'perfect' plan and the gains are gone vs something you actually stick to.
I agree with your assessment; as a Master's athlete (53) I've been asking TR for a Master's plans for years. I don't know any 53 year old cyclist who can do 4 -5 intervals sessions for 3,4 and even 5 weeks straight.
Then don't , do the low volume training and do 2-3 interval training sessions per week 🤷♂️
I don't know anyone at any level who does 24 sweet spot (basically low threshold as TR defines it at 88-94%) workouts over 5 weeks other than TR athletes doing SSBHV.
I cannot, that’s for damn sure...
Started following Dylan year or so. Got a power meter and started to push it hard on hard days and real easy of easy days. Breaking all my Strava PR by 15-20 seconds. Ride easy 3 days a week and 2 hard rides most weeks. Am actual 10lbs heavier due to Covid eating, yet stronger on the bike. Thanks to Dylan!
Hey buddy, I thought your comment on endurance training for 2 hours indoors a struggle was spot on! Anything over 90 minutes inside is for me is like watching paint dry!
Just dreadful right?! Not exageratting when I say that those ~65% rides are some of my least favorite. Another part I cut from the vid, but if I lived in a hot place and could ride 65% for hours a week with friends just chilling out and loving life on a bike, throw in a fast / hard ride or two a week, OH MAN, I'd probably be POL 100%. That sounds great. For me on the trainer staring at Zwift or music? Pretty blech.
Ugh seriously. I decided to take on TR's traditional base mid volume plan to start my year off. I'm about halfway through the 2nd phase and my rides this week are 2:00-2:45 and it's absolutely dreadful. I was hoping to do the longer rides outside, but Texas decided to play Canada this week and we got 8" of snow and ice.
@@clrbrk9108 I'm in UK, we've had some cold temps + snow last 6 weeks, looking better at the moment, looking forward to some outside riding again!
I have weaned myself to sometimes prefer 2-4 hour rides on the trainer as it spares me the time to watch these training, vlogs, listen to TR podcasts and 1-2 movies on Netflix. My regular day does not afford me the time to do this. Also my outdoor Z1/Z2 rides seem more stale and sometimes dangerous.
Amazing! I can't do it often. I've done a 3.75 hr once and it broke me. I'm eyeing the Zwift Uber Pretzel Saturday but I don't know if I have it in me😅
Amazing Justin. Been following your content silently across YT, TR forum, and event Reddit but this video made me a 100% fan. I like how you can boil down complicated topics by isolating and talking about the objective facts first, but you also have no problems folding in the personal/subjective stuff on top of the logic to show us how our emotions can lead us to different conclusions. I hope those who are getting bent out of shape over this debate can put this technique into practice.
Actually, the thing I liked the most is your explanation of the bell curve. It seems nearly all arguments stem from the fact that people are either unaware of where they are on the bell curve, or that a bell curve even exists, or they have an unreasonable expectation on fairness in regards to where they stand on the bell curve. This SS vs Polarized vs DoingAnything really comes down to picking what's best for each individual's circumstances. We can't put a measuring stick to our lifestyle and throw it into a formula to produce an optimal plan, so the simplest solution is to listen to our own hearts and do what it already knows. What everyone else is doing or telling you to do, are interesting considerations, but should be respectfully ignored if it isn't compatible with our lifestyle and goals.
Lastly, I think it's interesting that other communities like rowing has had a pretty long-standing understanding that "Polarized is the best longterm; Sweet Spot is fast, efficient and works great too but not the best". Maybe Seiler being a a prominent figure over there has something to do with establishing that culture.
Heyo! I really appreciate it! I don't ever claim to be perfect or the most knowledgable, but at the very least I try to facilitate a discussion that trys to skip the biases. Of course, we've all got our own perspectives and such, and that's not a bad thing, but trying to at least start with an objective piece to build off of has been really helpful to me when I've learned things too. I really find it useful when people explain things to me like, "Here are the facts, and here are my opinions as someone who's interested in this a long time, but here are some other things that people think too. Now, go live your life with that info and build your own conclusions." I've developed a bit of a pet peeve (beyond just sport) when people answer a "What's the best...." question with anything other than some more questions, because I've found that in so many cases, there isn't really a best, just a best for the situation. Anyway, that was a ramble, but I really appreciate your comment! I think it's been within the last 6 months that I've started to make more of the type of content that I've wanted to and has been kicking around in my head. I'll only ever make videos as long as people find it useful, so I'm happy that it is. 👍
Thanks. I can recommend reading Dr. Stephen Seiler. He is one of the main authors of the science that Dylan summarizes.
Seiler has several lectures on UA-cam as well, and was involved in many/most of the studies being referenced.
yes, finally real science to back claims :)
Cheers, good summary. I really liked Dylan’s post; I’ve used TR for a year and am enjoying the whole package. I do low volume so for me I’m happy to have three sessions a week of TR structure and I can coast my real world low intensity commute. I did feel that one of the recent TR vids probably pushed Dylan into responding but he’s brought up a lot of fair points that TR will hopefully respond to. They certainly have the infrastructure that they could relatively easily compare the improvement of people on a three times a week sweet spot plus their own getting to work etc stuff plan with three times a week 40;20 sessions plus the commute stuff. They have a gold mine of training outcomes on real subjects. Personally I hate my over under sessions on TR but think they have benefited me and,will continue.
I agree, and for now, am continuing in TR. Their plans are good-ish / enough for me with my knowledge to use them as a base to edit and build upon, and their periodization planning is more work than I want to put effort into building out. I also hate O/Us, but lately I've changed my mind into feeling that the Spencer-esque workouts are the hardest. Brutal.
Great video. One thing to note is that you actually can customize your training plan. You can select/deselect workouts from your subscribed training plan and choose an alternate workout from their workout “pool” based on what type of ride you want it to be (aerobic/endurance/anaerobic/active recovery). This is something worth mentioning. As Dylan either didn’t know or omitted it as well.
Good clarification. Thanks!
And I agree, doing over 90 mins of zone 1/2 is really hard on the trainer. I think this is partly why TR structures their plans as such - to keep people engaged in the training.
Thanks for the video and I think you present a generally sound analysis and counter-argument. I've watched both the Dylan Johnson video you reference, as well as the "polarised vs SST" TrainerRoad video with Keegan Swenson that Dylan seems to have been responding to. Your definition of the 3 physiological zones is a little bit off - the model is based on the ventilatory thresholds/LT1 and LT2 so Z1 in the 3 zone model is not simply "recovery" as you state, it includes work in traditional "zone2" from the 7-zone model (endurance/fatmax riding). FWIW though, I do agree with your general analysis that the comparison between POL and THR in the chart Dylan presents from the study is flawed - the chart is more presenting data to answer "does including Z5-6 intervals in a training bout boost endurance performance during short term interventions" and the answer as we already knew is "of course it does" - the makeup of the rest of the training zones during the intervention is largely irrelevant in this context. Its also worth noting that (a) training periodisation normally leads to different training approaches depending on your training phase (eg POL during base, THR during build) so its not a "one approach is better overall"; and (b) LSD/Z1 riding and Tempo/Z2 volume over time continues to scale fitness over time more sustainably than intense Z3 (vo2max) efforts which lead to short-term benefits (seen in studies) only but soon max out in terms of benefits.
Absolutely, spot on, and thanks for expanding on that. It's always a struggle for me to balance pithiness with accuracy, so I appreciate the expansion and clarity. 👍
Do you have a link to the Keegan "polarised vs SST" video that you mentioned? thanks/
Dylan crushes it on the bike. He not only has the science but the results. As he says we often go too easy on are hard days and too hard on easy days. That is the take away
Yup - absolutely... so many of my buddies do this all the time and have to race each other every group ride ... hilarious. Then keep moaning about being on a plateau! 🤣
It seems like years ago I read about studies that compared cyclists who had done traditional base training of LSD before power intervals vs. cyclists who skipped the LSD and did nothing but power intervals. It's a little foggy but it seems like the LSD group had made more fundamental changes to their physiology in more efficient oxygen uptake and energy production. Does that seem familiar to anyone?
Great video. You and Dylan are both spot on. I appreciate you both
I like your transparency here. great stuff. keep uploading you deserve my subscription!
Great video
And agree I get bored very easy indoor riding
Tr may not be perfect but it has me following a plan and I think that is important
Not everyone gets gains the same way
Really good commentary. Thank you.
Thx for you assistance, have a good season👍
1 thing that complicates things is the fuzzy frontiers between zones. When i do what i consider a Z2 workout, depending on the metric (power vs HR) and system (zones, name of zones, website that processes the zones), i may be doing something easy (Z1 in a 3 zone model) or something medium (Z2 in a 3 zone model). Ditto on hard efforts. I thought that doing threshold work was hard (holding 8 or 10min @FTP or just above or just below WILL wear you out, it is a hard workout, and I cannot do more than 2 or 3 of these per week), HOWEVER they can be counted as Z2 in a 3 zone model, although they definitely feel like the hard side of a polarized approach.
So, unless you're doing a REALLY easy workout or efforts you can't hold for more than 3-4min, then you're in some grey zone that has as many interpretations as there are people.
Layer on top of that the reliability of FTP values (a ramp test seems to consistently overestimate FTP values off traditional / longer steady intervals), and you have fuzziness all across the belly of a normal curve of efforts.
I use / have used garmin, zwift, xert, intervals.icu, and zone info & names from the likes of Dylan Johnson, Joe Friel & more, where someone's sweetspot's someone else's tempo, or threshold.
Something that Dr. Seiler has pointed out, that I think gets overlooked often, is that training below VT1 elicits different physiological adaptations than training above VT2, and that the idea that time-constrained athletes should reduce zone 1 training, and do mostly zone 2 and zone 3 training will lead those people to miss out on important training benefits. This is especially important for triathletes, since in a race that is half Iron distance or longer, we will spend most of the race at the boundary of zone 1 and zone 2 (assuming a 3 zone model). Thanks for another great video.
That's similar to the Slowtwitch "BarryP" running plan too; in short, extremely short, very easy runs with high frequency until you're able to run longer at VT1. Of course, just anecdotal, but people seem to report great results if they hit the consistency.
How are you characterizing the threshold group as doing JRA power or type of riding? Based on the avg interval power and their pre/post 40kTT power used as a proxy for Z3, they are doing SS/threshold intervals
Thanks. I'm glad you made this. I watched dylans video. twice actually and would flat out call him out on referencing a study that has zero zone 3 saying its a TR plan. That's not a TR plan. TR is actually way more pyramidal overall and becomes polarised during the speciality phase.
And now they have POL too!
at 12:20 you talk about moving a plan forward. On TRs website you can click the 3 dots on the right of the week and "push week"
Sort of, but it's kinda a crappy implementation. It doesn't actually restructure the plan at all, it just moves everything down. One of the main values of Plan Builder is that it plans around your events. If you use the Push Week, it doesn't actually update your plan to reflect your events, it just pushes everything down a week, which is basically useless if you are training for events. You basically have to just delete your whole plan and make a new one backdated to a whenever you started your first. It's really clunky.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon Push everything out a week and then find a week to "Clear" it's not that hard
@@yetiman72 Everything is easy if you know how to do it. The point is, they don't account for that and it takes knowledge to know what week to 'clear.' The ability to adjust a training block for missed workouts is a pretty 'expected' feature, and their implementation is lacking.
endurance level training is not easy recovery trianing, but is in the three zone model in zone 1... Going over Zone 1 in this model alerts your endorcine and autonomic nervous system and thus gives you turbulance to recovery and fatigues you and have affect in the performance of other life aspects and can spiral to have negative affect to your overall health. Everybody should aim to be fit and healthy, Zone 2 in the model includes everything from tempo to threshold. What ive seen from the plans in trainer road i agree complitely with dylan.... maybe the low volume plans are little better as they have some HIIT / Zone 3 in them to complement the ZZone 2 work.... i would go for those every time if have to use TR and then add more Zone 1 work to really lay down the foundation and give enough exercise to mitochondria level respiration. thats where the longetivity and health gains are made. in the 5/6 zone model at the zone 2, so in the 3 zone model its the zone 1 higher end, the "endurance" work....
Got my Bachelors in Exercise Science a few years ago and we talked about this a lot. Man I hate threshold training, might be more engaging but it’s just worse in my opinion. Runners have known this for years you run easy or you run really hard, you only run in that middle ground when practicing race pace.
Yeah, I've really slowed my running down, spent years running at 'comfortably hard.' The key to that is I think running forums need to do a better job of communicating the Z3 / high intensity side of things too. I see so many people who only tout the 'run slow to run fast' line; at least for me, that just means I only run slow.
I think you hit on exactly what I was thinking when I watched Dylan's video which is that polarised training might be more effective but it doesn't make for an interesting motivational plan on a virtual platform. Dylan did s good video a while back about the workouts in Zwift and how they mostly seem to be a little bit of every training zone thrown together in each session. The reality is that people like variety of intensity because it keeps the boredom at bay. A training plan with 80% of the rides at a steady low intensity is boring as hell on an indoor trainer so who is going to buy that and keep paying for it? I'm a fan of the polarised approach and so I try to do as many of my easy rides as I can outdoors and get stuck into the intervals on the trainer but I would struggle with this method if all my riding had to be done indoors.
There is an art to riding an indoor trainer for long periods. I ride a lot on a spin bike for various reasons - the main one being that where I live there is one flat road by a river and that’s it. It’s about 2 miles long with a gazillion traffic lights tons of traffic and a lot of “ non bike- friendly” drivers.
So I find a way to get through up to 4 hour training rides using music, videos and the like. To be honest the biggest issue I have is not boredom it’s bum soreness. I get out of the saddle pretty regular for 30 secs or a minute but it is still an issue. I would much prefer to be outside but I can’t get long Z2 (6 zone model) workouts done that way.
@@MarquitoRH 4 hours on an indoor bike ? 😳 Cyclists are 'special' people, that's for sure...
@stoempert Hahah yeah. I did 6.5 last weekend. Gotta do what you gotta do.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon Wow. With a good playlist i can get up to two hours or so, and the last half hour of that i spent questioning the meaning of life and my miserable existence 😂
Interesting take and I think you're right in your analysis. But so is Dylan Johnson (which you acknowledge as well). I think the big problem is when people do get recommended the higher volume plans and are motivated to keep at it, there is a risk of going too far. Generally there's the idea to 'trust the plan' since most of us aren't professional athletes or have a coaching degree. The plans are the next best thing.
And it does seem a bit weird to be prescribing so much volume without adequate recovery while broadcasting a very popular podcast dedicated to finding the best ways to train. The problem there being that the authority of the podcast is brought over to the training plans/platform without the training plans being actually optimized according to the science. And I've read some people saying TR tried it the other way and people weren't doing the easy Z1* sessions and that TR is aiming for a +-70% completion rate on the plans. That means that they're stuck between a rock and a hard place in one way, but also catering to the bad habits of people in another.
As with everything, keeping a critical mind and listening to your body seem to apply here too.
Great video!
*3 zone modelc
PS: how confusing is all this 3 zone vs 5 zone conversion?!
Yeah, really nailed it top to bottom. One thing that I've wanted to stick into a video but never really found a time for is: I would like more of that podcast knowledge to 'exist' in the app. It seems like if you don't devote hours / week to the podcast, you're missing out on a LOT. The workout text is useful the first time you see it, but pretty quickly I think most people realize it's like 5 variations on the same basic theme. Useful for a bit, but then pretty bland. There is SO much great info on the podcast, and yeah, it feels like a lot of it is compartmentalized off. Also, spot on re: bad habits, and that's a SUPER interesting factor in the challenge of using statistical analysis to look at the training plans too: Let's say there's a super effective workout that most people don't do, should you pull that workout out? Should you or I be punished because our peers aren't compliant in their plans? Or do we prioritize the good of the aggregate even at the lost potential of ~20% of individuals, etc? It's a super cool discussion. And yes, the Zone 1/2/3 vs 1234567 is very annoying. I could have called it the first and second ventilatory threshold, which is the 'right' language, but that's even more things to learn. Blech.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon I agree on all points. And it's an interesting topic/problem for the indoor training apps. You need to cater to casual users, casual users looking to take their training seriously and hard-core users all at the same time. And in a way, most of the points raised are related to the latter two categories, which is where people can get pushed too far or start to look more critically towards the plans.
The podcast at this point (which I enjoy listening to) seems very much an entity in and of itself. TR has a great resource there which it can into the plans.
I have to say, I'm not a TR user, I use the Sufferfest, so I'm looking at this discussion from the sideline. Though there's been a tendency in The Sufferfest to move away from the hard intervals all the time. And I've been happy to see it. All in all with these apps, they're still bringing a lot of value to most people's lives through providing consistency and a framework around which to build your season or to get you through the winter in good shape. The only way is forward!
also the point was, that Chad from TR was saying that 3 weeks of such intensity (SS) is too much ....
Not sure if anyone pointed this out by Z1 in the three zone model is not recovery, it’s anything up to 75% of FTP ie below LT1. So this can include recovery but also extends to endurance, or zone 2 of the five zone model. So it’s not riding 80% of the time at recovery.
Yeah, turns out I oversimplified in the video. I can only pin one comment, but yes, you're right. Z1 is up through the very bottom of Coggan Z3. 👍
Really good video. Great analysis. Thank you.
I think the best point you made was the comparison to weight loss. When it comes to weight loss the best diet is the one that has a calorie deficit and that you actually stick to.
TR does not just ask "if someone did this plan what is the outcome?" Instead they can ask "if someone is prescribed this plan what is the outcome?" That way if there are non physiological factors that cause a plan to perform poorly like that it's hard to do those workout indoors, or people don't enjoy them, or non-compliance is high for some reason then they capture that data. They have said this on their podcast a few times, particularly about their use of sweet spot (which is only in some plans, mostly high volume base) and their preference for the ramp test over the 20 minute test. They didn't think the alternatives were bad, they thought they were not effective because compliance was poor.
Exactly. If there's some hypothetical training plan out there that gets great results but only 10% of people can actually realize those results, is it the 'best' training plan? For some yes, for some, definitely no.
For some reason a number of my friends are all taken with reverse periodization. The challenges with all of this is you can’t go back and undo 3 months of training. Your point about investing 10 hours per week for 6 weeks was what got me thinking...that’s a HUGE investment for something that might not be optimized. What I thought was the most interesting part of Dylan’s commentary was that the polarization effect starts at around 6 hours. While it’s tempting to use HIIT 2 or 3 times per week and think that you’re recovered - the challenge of ‘just riding’ (and adding 2 or 3 hours in the middle zone/s) can very easily lead to overtraining.
A really important distinction, too, great point. And especially because it's easy to conflate 'add z2 (endurance z2 that is' and end up with more TSS, vs *replacing* rides with z2. Very different outcomes. 150TSS of Z2 is still 150 tss; that adds up.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon this leads to my ultimate question about reverse periodization (and I realize that’s not what this is about but it seems related) - there may be different optimal strategies for triathletes versus pure runners or even duathletes (like me). Mastering three sports may make the plateauing intrinsic to certain strategies tolerable in the context of trying to improve all three disciplines. In other words, if getting through a season healthy and kinda fast is possible it may not be as important to fully optimize across all the variables. I really like your point about adding 150 ‘easy’ TSS. And that seems to be why folks are talking about multi factorial fitness and adding a duration variable - a la Xert or Tri.dot
@@JoshuaParks One of my dumb joke lines is "Undertrained is better than over-injured." I've never seen a time where I'd chase an additional few percent here and there when risking being sidelined for days (if I'm lucky) to a week (typically) or weeks+ if I'm unlucky. But then again, this is just a hobby for me, I'm slower now than I was a year ago, and I don't get paid to win, so I don't need to take risks. Reverse is interesting, but I don't knw enough about the data to have a strong opinion either way. Also, you're now like the 4th or 5th person to mention Xert; I've heard of it before, but perhaps it's gaining traction in a way I should look into... I'm not going to swap plans altogether, but I'm always open to new things. And yeah, re: TSS to expand that a bit, I think it's easy for people on a THR plan to see POL and think, "Oh, well if I add endurance Z2, then my ratio improves, I can have the best of both worlds!" And then they end up with 30% higher TSS (even if the new TSS is relatively easy) and are even less recovered. I think TR can do a better job of explaining this too, because you can't 'chase' a POL plan by just adding in Z2 and lowering your ratio. If you're already near your limit of THR/PYR structure, then added Z2 is just additional stress. Not necessarily bad, but not automatically a POL either.
Dont forget your private life overall stress factors. In addition to stressful work or relations, SS trainings just tease your ANS pretty much. Polarized is safe to gain training time and adjust intensity when possible within training weeks not to burn out.
Nice video. I 100% agree with you on the flexibility of TR plans. As an older cyclist (47) I find that I start to fail sweet spot workouts around week 5. It's been suggested on the TR forum that masters and older athletes need more deload and to add this in, in the middle of a SSB plan. That's great and all but if using plan builder it ruins everything if you do that because, as you noted, it doesn't recalculate. Also 100% agree that TR has the data, hell they brag about it on the podcast from time to time, and should implement AI/machine learning to adjust your plan based on your results. Honestly my guess from listening to the podcast for years is that this is in the works and if/when they implement it I think it will be a great addition.
Yeah, age especially really seems to be a sticking point for SSB/Build plans. I see a ton of posts even from people a bit older than you (like 55+) who report that they just struggle hard with all the stress. Kinda like you said, if you deload and edit it yourself, great, but the whole point is that most people don't have that knowledge. I hope it's in the works too!
@@JustinDoesTriathlon I think part of it as well is my level of training. While I've ridden bikes for years I never trained in any specific manner. So 3 years ago when I started Trainer Road I was basically completely untrained. Now 3 years later I haven't seen my FTP move much at all but I can tell you FOR SURE that my FTP is more real than it was 3 years ago. I can now sustain power near my FTP for long climbs where I couldn't before. I think given another year I will be seeing actual FTP gains as well as being able to complete workouts deeper into their plans. As you say it's about consistency as much as anything.
You are not older man ! I am 3 days off 60...😳
@JustinDoesTriathlon Welp...@TrainerRoad just released exactly what I proposed. LOL It's almost like it was inevitable.
@@johnfarr5415 🙌🙌 I haven't actually dove in yet, but looks cool!
Great video Justin. You do mirror my thoughts to some extent. I am one of those in the 20% range. I have alos had those frustrations when trying to move a whole plan a week or 2.
Yeah it really shouldn't be THAT hard. I've had to delete my whole plan in the past... 🙄
@@JustinDoesTriathlon Same here, were we missing something?
I don't think so. I know they say on the podcast that if you just miss one weeks it's NBD and hop back in. Okay, fair, but sometimes I miss more than that (hey, it happens.) Also broadly, I think I then start feeling like: 1) it should adapt and just rehash me out a plan, and 2) I think it's looking like right now, TR has effectively an agnostic take to all the training you've done previously. It feels kinda crappy to just delete my whole plan with the history I have in TR and redo it, but I guess it's moot because they're not looking at all that historical data to make a future plan anyway. That's a big huge opportunity.
Nice balanced summary thanks, though not sure i follow your point on not being able to customise or push plans etc. in the calendar ability to push / pull weeks, can amend plans once set and swap out workouts, make up weeks as you please from the workout library, or build your own in customer workout builder .. plus you can take the workouts outdoors..
Yeah I gotcha. Primarily what I think it should have is essentially a dynamic restructuring of workouts as a result of missed workouts, particularly if you miss a full week or more. As is, you can always add in your own workouts, but the plan doesn't account for things automatically. I'd like to see it be smart enough to adapt the plan to any upcoming events taking into consideration that you just missed 7 workouts, etc. As is, I've had to delete out base/build plans just to adapt things in the past. This is part of a larger weakness, though, in that TR doesn't use much historical data to drive future data. For instance, a person who has done 4 base/build cycles might (or maybe not, but they should use their data to decide) to shorten base and do more build, etc. Basically, I just want more dynamic planning.
I think you need both polarized and sweetspot training. Polarized training is for generating a huge aerobic engine which is represented by your Power@VO2Max; once you have that, you want to bring your Power@Lactate Treshold as close as possible to your Power@VO2Max which is accomplished by sweetspot training. Having to decide between polarized and sweetspot is a made-up problem when you can do both. Furthermore, if you hit the VO2Max ceiling, polarized training likely will not generate additional benefit. VO2Max is a glas ceiling, its height is determined by genetics; however, the utilization of your VO2Max (aka your FTP) is highly trainable; you can get as close as 90-95%. That is a lot, given that for example the ramp test assumes your FTP is @75 of your Max Aerobic Power.
If you listen to Dr Stephen Seiler, it seems the polarized model is over the course of a season or longer. Thus, much of the early season will not even get into higher intensity, while later in the season will have more. The polarization description need be accurate for every training block but fits when one steps back and looks at training from a longer perspective.
Great video. Love to discuss hormones and how they affect weight loss and not necessarily calories.
Yeah, exactly, and all the other contributing factors like cravings, long term sustainability, satiation, how you actually feel day to day, etc. Very complicated.
Really like this video man. Every athlete is different and finding what works best for you is key 👌🏻
"cant apply science in a vacuum" that is the key statement, especially when you apply it to people,. whether it be psychology or physiology.
One thing that is always (as far as I know) omitted from this debate is: what is the magnitude of difference between the two approaches?
Everyone makes their argument for which is "best," but is a polarized plan 2% better than sweet spot? 10%? 25%? This is a hugely important question.
If polarized training is 25% better than sweet spot, then what TrainerRoad is doing is insane--almost everyone will have better outcomes with a polarized plan, regardless of workout preference. If it's only 2% better, then what TrainerRoad is doing makes sense: if their customers prefer sweet spot training, and are more likely to actually do the sweet spot workouts consistently, then then why put them on a polarized plan they don't like and are unlikely to complete?
In the meta-studies that are cited to show polarized as the best plan, what is the variance in the results? Do the individual studies range from showing polarized plans are between 1% and 5% better than the alternative, or -5% to 5%? Again, this is sort of necessary to know how certain we should be about what is best. If the variances are high, and the certainty is low, then we should be placing much more emphasis on what works for each individual, and less on what plan is "best" for everyone.
Let's say that we know with 100% certainty that polarized plans are 3% better than sweet spot plans. Thousands of randomized control trials with massive sample sizes have confirmed this: on average, polarized plans result in 3% better gains than sweet spot plans. There is no dispute--God has confirmed the findings.
In this scenario, it's STILL not at all clear what plan any one individual should follow. The average result is just that: the average. It tells us what happens when a large population is sampled, but gives us little information about what will happen to any one person. The average hides the many people for which sweet spot plans work far better than polarized, and vice versa. Telling people that polarized is "better," in this case, is not very useful.
If the studies showed it was 50% better, however... that's a different story.
Yup, hugely important. And then you can work that the other way too: If you're doing POL and life happens and you miss a high-effort day, is that whole week hindered so much that a slightly less effect threshold plan is more effective? It really seems to always come back to: They all work, and you just need to stick with something long term. It seems like a marketing race to find the absolute best best best extra best plan; how fit would I have been by picking the *worst plan* ten years when I started cycling ago and then riding the hell out of it every since? Probably way fitter than I am now.
Look into Xert. Someone else also mentioned it. I had this feeling the part of the video where you were asking for customization and adaptability and "AI" (in quotes because that term is so abused), you were asking for Xert. Even they're not perfect, no one is, but their whole plan adapts as you go along whether you follow their advice or not, and is working from a much fuller model of your fitness, not just FTP. All they require is every ride to be uploaded, vast majority with power, although if a few only have heart rate they can derive some stress metrics from it. Like I said they have weaknesses too, their model could stand to become a bit more sophisticated, doesn't seem to have changed in a few years. But it's a great tool, though a bit of a steeper learning curve to grasp the concepts, newbies can feel a bit lost.
Yeah, seems like it keeps coming up. I signed up for the free trial today and I'll give it a look through. Yeah, seems super complicated though... We'll see how it goes.
I agree on the complexity at least initially. Read a few of their blog posts to clarify things
Can this type of training be split during (a) workout. 80% Z 1. 20 % Z 2. If so how many days a week should you do it?
Or do you need to do 4 days at Z1 and 1 day at Z2 on a 5day workout schedule? Thx
first of all I think it’s supposed to be 20% Z3 not Z2
second, you can split it however you want. for example you ride 5hrs a week,
20% of that is 1hr exactly that means. you can have a day that you go ride for an hr, 30 mins of which you ride in Z3 the rest(warm up, recovery and warm down) in Z1, and you can have 2 days like that in your training week, or instead you can have 3 days when you ride for an hr, 20 mins of which you ride in Z3, the rest of the time and the week in Z1, or maybe even you can have 1 day that you just ride in Z3 for the whole 60 mins(you really shouldn’t though)
so it’s completely up to you, try the different ways and mix it up.
@@alembiqueONE
right sorry bout that z3 got it, I thought I heard Dylan talk about a 6 X 6 for an hour, from 87-92% ftp 6 min on with 4 min rest.
X 6.
Do you recommend ftp or higher, for how long ? would you mind giving an example. Thx
@@Nordviking8 can’t give you any example on that, sorry.
i’ve only been cycling consistently for 6 months now and only been training with the HR strap. I don’t even know my FTP.
right now I’m following a Metric Century training plan on garmin connect app(it’s free and I believe you don’t even have to own a garmin device) and my weekly training load looks about like 80/20
I would suggest start with that 87-92% range and see if you can do those 6x6mins if not, you have to reduce the duration of a block, number of those blocks or the power you’re trying to hold.
remember if you’re just starting your training or getting back to it after a while off the bike you don’t have to do all those workouts(or you shouldn’t even).
you should rather get to them gradually, no shame in taking it slow or riding slow.
Yeah OK. But when you turn your hat around backwards, we can't even tell.
Saw DJ’s video... I was thinking, "oh boy, that’s a fire starter"... pivoted over to TR’s forum and read some of the comments and it was a mixed bag... my only two cents is TR is still a young company, so they have room to improve... the fact so many people have opinions about them, pro/con, at least tells you while they’re not perfect (no company is), they’re services are valued and they’re flexible enough to adjust as they grow. I’m definitely looking forward to their next podcast that’s for sure! 🍻
Agree! It's a shame that it was AS contentious as it was; I mean, I obviously didn't agree with everything he wrote, but I fully support surfacing the research and chatting about it. Fact is, there's more than one effective way to train, and I don't think anyone should be so locked in on any plan as to refuse to want to look at others. I'm not going to be disappointed if TR doesn't magically switch to something altogether different, but absolutely, customizability is something that is a big win for everyone. Theirs is pretty light.
I just started polarized and dont mind it so far. I can do other stuff while riding on the trainer. But outside I might get bored. Interval sessions really kick my ass though
You pretty much nailed it. Thanks, Justin. The thing missing from the conversation is that TR has built-in, tight feedback loops: ramp test, compliance metrics, customer retention, etc. They are not simply crafting plans, selling them, and then hoping for the best. They are creating the best plans they can, gathering data, and adjusting. They don’t dilute their focus: subscriptions are the only way they make money. If they were getting things wrong along too many metrics (people not progressing, people burning out, etc.), it hits them where it hurts: the bottom line. That said, it would be a genius move if TR allowed us to opt-in to A/B testing or machine-learning driven versions of plans (e.g., polarized or pyramidal). They could use that data to adapt their plans or customize the training plan based on an individual's training response. It’s a little ridiculous not to be running these kinds of experiments when they should have all the machinery and a user base willing to subject themselves to training experimentation. USE YOUR KILLER ADVANTAGES, TR! And do it quickly, before we become more risk-adverse to experimentation as the return to racing nears.
Yep! Top to bottom. It's interesting that TR has sort of positioned itself as TR = Sweetspot training. I agree with what you sort of hinted at: They totally COULD offer other sorts of plans. There's no real reason that TR "has" to equal SS. Interestingly I think it might hit into that Paradox of Choice thing I talked about with the bike buying vid a few weeks back; give people too many choices and they get nervous. Give them ONE choice and say "This is the way," people take it and move on. I don't think it's as easy as "POL good, SS bad." I mean, even if POL is more effective in a vacuum, we know that in the real world, people don't always behave the same way. And of course, we also know that people DO get faster using SS. I think it's a good discussion to have, and I'm all for people at least being open to other options and keeping a big picture in mind. I hate to just 'hand wave' it away, but I'm mostly on: If it works for you, keep doing it. If it doesn't, change.
Super video. Based on my personal experience and what i see around me, I think a person just coming off of the couch might not be able to handle a polarized training plan, regardless of volume. Possibly pyramidal would be most effective to start and then over to threshold and then polarized. I think you need to have a good aerobic base to do polarized properly.
This problem is addressed by training periodisation.
id be curious to know your thoughts on the new TR announcements
Very excited! Still have to dig in further, but super promising
Great video. I really like Dylan's videos but I feel like any of the studies are difficult to trust especially if you look at the number of participants in each of the studies in the meta analysis. Trainer Road has some big numbers and with that some really good data to support the plans that improve FTP.
For sure. Now I just hope they start actually doing something interesting with all of this data....
The TR data set has a massively disproportionate representation of untrained people. An argument could be made that ANY program would result in FTP gains when you are starting from an untrained condition. That is going to skew that data set as well.
@@whip113 - Do you think they could tease that data out? Or maybe break it up into multiple data sets targeting different sets of people to see what kind of workouts work best. The TR guys collect a crazy amount of data. Did you know that if you pause a workout that that gets recorded and they use that data to represent 'not really completing the workout successfully'? Crazy interesting stuff.
This studies are designed to get answer to questions, often use randomized samples of people (when it's possible), and give results with their uncertainty. The only thing you can put in doubt is the interpretation of the conclusions.
On the other hand, you can guess nothing from the TrainerRoad numbers apart that on average, you should improve your fitness on the bike with their trainings (which are not a really helpful information).
Saw your edit, but I think you’ve still got the 3 zone model wrong. Z1 isn’t strictly recovery, includes what’s we’d think of endurance. Z2 is high endurance all the up to threshold, not over threshold. Z3 is threshold and above. The first study where it’s half Z1 and half Z2 sounds like what sweet spot base would be, if there’s no VO2 max work.
Ssb has intensity in the second half of it. And besides, SSB is a base plan; lots of people do gain power in it,bit it's the base part of the base/build/specialty order. Build had a ton of vo2 work in it
1 year further. TR has AI implimented in what I would call a beta version. Maybe worthy of a new video diving into it. It makes me consider switching from ''join' to TR and buying a powermeter in the near future.
Indeed. I've been kicking around how to do an analysis of it properly; it's somewhat hard to do because they don't release their methodologies publicly. That said, one of my good friends is a Ph.D. in data science focused on the application of ML to large data sets, so I think I'm going to work with him and possibly have him come on and talk about it. I like highlighting the real SMEs.
Great insight as always! Thanks for posting.
And then they introduced AT and made it all moot. 😅
Excellent commentary. I'm personally a fan of Dylan and TR. While they have their differences, they agree on so much more than they disagree on. I also think a good part of Dylan's criticisms were based on misperceptions or a lack of understanding of TR programs. For instance, I just completed TR's mid volume sweet spot base programs 1 and 2 as they were originally designed. What many do not know is that these plans originally included a long Z2 ride on Sunday instead of another sweet spot ride. They made the change to a shorter sweet spot ride in lieu of the longer Z2 ride only because the user compliance was very low with the longer Z2 ride. They still suggest the longer Z2 ride in the weekly notes. Anyways, the point I want to get to is that my results with completing the mid volume "sweet spot" plans were text book "pyramidal", something Dylan has admitted as being every bit as effective as polarized. Dylan is far from alone in having such misperceptions regarding TR. Thus, it is evident at least in my eyes that TR shares some of the responsibility for such misperceptions or misunderstandings.
Lastly, most any experienced coach will say that one of the biggest parts of their jobs is holding athletes back from doing too much. With that in mind, it is pretty much a given that a certain number of users will do more than they should and end up burned out or over trained with self-coached off the shelf plans such as the ones TR offers. TR has a long history of promoting their "minimal effective dose" philosophy in their weekly podcasts. While there is a limit on what TR can do to prevent people from over doing it on their workouts and plans, they could certainly do a much better job of promoting their minimal effective dose philosophy across their platform as a whole. Cheers.
Spot on, thanks for sharing. Your part about "A better workout that fewer people do" is a REALLY interesting topic to me, and also gets into the machine learning / AI video that I'm (slowly) working on. If there's a great workout that no one does, is it a great workout? Conversely, should YOU individually be 'punished' because your peers don't want to / can't complete a great workout? Where's that threshold? There's no clear answer. And yeah, Min. Effective Dose is certainly an element of TR, arguably even a marketing slant, but it can drive their training. Even zooming out from cycling, there's no one 'best' training anything; everything has compromises and other elements to focus on. Is high vol POL great at getting results? Looks like maybe so, but that's not the only factor.
Thoughts on XERT?
I don't know enough to have a good opinion on it, but maybe others can chime in as well. I've seen it crop up more and more in comments, so maybe I should look into it
@@JustinDoesTriathlon that would be awesome. A simple search on UA-cam shows that there really isn’t much review/thoughts on it.
I used Xert for the last 2 years and I can highly reccomend it. It selects workouts for you based on your fatugue level and which phase of training you are in. The workouts themselves are adaptive and often based on reaching a % of MPA (MAX power available) rather than a fixed watts for a period of time. Your FTP is automatically calculated based on max effort workouts. It is super good for outdoor training using their iQ app on garmins or mobile phones which was the main reason I went for it.
Just to have a change I am now using TR and for me the main difference is having your plan fixed day by day which can be a good thing and I so far enjoy. Im only a month in at the moment using plan builder on a medium plan. Because of the compressed nature of my calendar im straight into the build phase which seems to have quite a few polarised workouts. Mmmmm. Anyways .... Xert, definitely worth serious look.
I don't understand what you mean by it's difficult to move the plan forward? You can just click the week and click move forward and it bumps everything forward, I've done it multiple times when I've felt sick, had a busy work week, etc.
Yeah, you can do that, but if you have built your plan around an event or events, then it really falls apart. It doesn't do any sort of recalc, so your plan is now offset by a week from all of your events, which is arguably one of the best parts of plan builder (the seasonality loading/deloading/tapering.) the only way to fix that is to delete your full plan and then re-add it, backdating it to where you previously started minus whatever time; it's a real pain, and also gets into the whole part that they're not really optimizing based off prior training that you've done. Hopefully you shouldn't be needing to delete full weeks out of your plan THAT often, but just generally speaking, the ability to update your plan seems like something that is a relatively common need, and their current implementation is pretty basic.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon ohh I see what you mean now. Yes makes sense, sounds like an easy fix for them to do.
I did trainer road for 4 days and couldn't get threw 2 out of 4 workouts on low volume. Would have been burned out in no time. My ftp trainerroad test matched what my zwift test. Do not sure why the workouts were so hard.
You're not the only one! It's challenging.
When Dylan talks about TR being too hard, he’s talking about the weeks, not individual workouts. In your case, the options are to drop the intensity by a few % or take short 10 second breaks. VO2max workout tolerance in particular is highly individual.
Awesome video as always mate. Thanks for your response. It is so hard to make a decision I can feel confident in within the cycling world. I'm completely lost
Yeah thanks for bringing it up! It's a good chat to have. My real opinion is that whatever you pick, just stick with it and you're going to see gains. There are little ways you can do better here or there, but finding something that you can stick with for many months or years is *by far* going to yield better results than whatever you complete only 2 or 3x a week, some weeks, because you hate. I think back to when I got into cycling in like... 2010 ish. Man, if I had picked even the WORST plan on earth and did it 4-5 days a week ever since then, I'd be incredible, right? So my point isn't that "It literally doesn't matter," but moreso: What are your goals? Do you want to be the absolute fastest possible? Do you jsut want to be able to go ride with friends, throw down some digs up hills, and just have fun on the bike? You want to be able to ride long, easily, and bike tour without feeling super tired? Work to identify those goals first, then look into whatever plans look like they support those goals that you think are fun, and then just stick to it. I mean heck, i just bought a mountain bike; MTB will arguably make me *slower*: time I spend on the MTB could be spent 'better' on the trainer. But like, I jsut love bikes. What's the point of getting fit if you can't enjoy it?
Where does the idea that zone 3 of 3 zone heart rate model is at or above FTP?
it is
@@Bayo106 the 3 zone model is made by finding HR at VT1 and VT2. Unless you can establish that power at VT2 is FTP, then I don't think you can say this.
Good video, well balanced.
Much appreciated! I try.
Thanks I'm now more confused than I'd even hoped to be
zone 1 is not recovery, its bellow lt1 which is roughly 75-80% maxhr. or 70-75% ftp.
I think the issue on zones are not correct. It's up to around 80% of ftp for zone 1. He also does not dismiss zone 2 riding. The team UAE coach also spoke about the very same and even pro riders are going around 80% and then HIT...
Also a s3cond point is that 80% of ftp is definately not an easy ride if you doing a 1hr tempo ride with a lower cadence etc
So if you rising 80% of your rides in zone 1 and around 70% to 80% ... wow! One youtuber Jasper was also doing these rides for 6 weeks and I think he had a 30 watts increase.
Sweetspot? I would say if you want to then 4 to 4 weeks in those 5 to 6 months prior to racing ...
For the amount of time put into sweetspot and the result I don't think it's not worth it. There are better systems and proven to give better results for sure ...
He also packed out the specific programs and the sessions per week. Dylan does prescribe threshold training. I think Trainer Road just got the combination incorrect in their mission to sell many programs.
@12:00 it’s like you predicted what they were going to do.
Yeah! Though honestly, I'm not too impressed with myself. I've been following them quite a while and it seemed pretty apparent to me; the real challenge is the implementation of it. I don't have access to test it myself yet, but so far, it seems really impressive. But sadly, still no multisport. I get it, and it makes sense to solve for just cycling first, but one day...
''Plan builder won't prescribe you high volume until you indicate that you've done on average 10h a week of structured training for past 6 weeks''
Good I wanna see you start with structured training and after 1,5 months try to survive high volume, hell try mid volume 1 and come back to me after few months.
I totally support Dylan's claims that those plans will lead to overtraining for most people. To quote TrainerRoad's own Chad Timmberman on high volume '' I recognized I wasn't going to be able to survive 5 weeks without completely breaking down so I did 3.'' I mean great that he's honest but he's admitting that the plan that they are selling is way too hard.
I know we are all different but doing 3 SST/FTP interval sessions a week is too hard for most people in a long run....4,5 and more are just bonkers IMO.
I get confused between when people talk about 3 zones vs. 5 zones. Why use one vs the other?
Just different ways of talking about what's going on in the body and the systems behind how the body produces energy.
Humans or any animal for that matter aren't supposed to operate for extended periods (30s or more maybe) at threshold intensity. In evolutionary terms it would signal that you are being chased by a predator! The CNS stress response is too high for beneficial adaptation. Zone 2 of the 6-7 zone model is basically a brisk walk which doesn't put any demand on the CNS. I guess this would be like the tribe calmly circling and cornering a bore (while the bore frantically runs around at threshold!) then sudden bursts of sprinting and wrestling with the bore would be your zone 5-7. I mainly jest of course but there is some truth there.
Hmmmm...if TR doesn’t do that “other unstructured sweet spot training” then doesn’t that imply that with the volume TR uses, you are even more bound to overtrain?
Very confused what you are trying to say here. TR has 3 levels of volume Low, Mid, High. Low keeps youy under 300 TSS while High will have you over 600 at times. If you don't have the time for recovery or proper nutrition that is what leads to burn out. That is why even if you want to do High TR constantly says do a few blocks of Low and see how you are doing and progress slowly to a High volume plan
Notice how ALL the Studies used or referenced have N=
Justin, I agree that there's a place for the type of stuff that TR does. I'm a user myself, but around 5 minutes in, you've got a pretty big error in your arguments. That study uses a 3 zone model - not 5. So those aren't JRA minutes. You're quite correct that there's no VO2 max efforts in there though, and that is most likely the reason for the decline.
I think the best way to describe the difference between polarized and sweet spot/threshhold training is to say "polarized does a better job of helping raise your aerobic floor, sweet spot does a better job or raising your aerobic ceiling." So sweet spot does a better job of helping you get max benefit from 5-6 hrs a week IF you've got your aerobic floor in a good place. If not, polarized is a better option.
Yeah, I know it's a 3zone model (VT1/2), I just purposefully kept the explanation simply to avoid diving too deep in that. I sort of equate JRA with Z1/2, because that's everything up to just over threshold, which pretty much is how most people spend their time. But yeah, I definitely get your point. There's a lot to unpack, for sure, and there's no 'only this path' to success IMO. That's a sticking point I have with pretty much every plan that touts itself as the 'best.' Best for some, sure, probably not all in the real world.
Great video! I am subscribing you now!
IMHO a lot of people are missing some key points here, and some studies too.
1 - The polarized intensity distribution is supported by Seiler much more in a workout by workout way than in a time in the zone basis. So it becomes more as 2 workouts involving a lot of work at or above LT2 for 8 workouts at or below LT1. Everybody seems to reason the concept by time in zone, 80% below LT1, 20% above, regardless of its frequency. Even this 80/20 principle can change quite a lot depending on the sport we are talking about.
2 - SS training and LT2 (FTP) training are not that different in terms of stimulus-response - see Coggan and Kolie Moore
3 - Seiler does not state that work AT LT2 (therefore including SS) falls into the “forbidden territory” so it would “count” as high intensity - of course then time spent there becomes a major factor - Coggan’s prescriptions on time at sweet spot are indeed crushing reaching 3 hours in a session for a pro cyclist
So the demonization of SS by the polarized advocates (in which I include myself) is a total non sense.
Having said this, I tried TR myself and unsubscribed it because it relies to much in FTP for prescriptions and there is too many intense days per week and I found myself digging a very deep hole in just 10 days… And I am not a beginner…
No offense, but hard to disagree with science here. SST will burn you out eventually doesn't matter how you approach it and it's more true if you're a master athlete. In a 3 zone model zone 1 include what we know endurance and low tempo zone and zone 2 include SST zone zone 3 everything above threshold.
TR's secret is... Chad actually builds workout plans that mirror his drinking habits 😉
That's why they're so tough
Oh man, the possibilities 🍻
Hey Justin. Dylan is not a scientist but he also knew not to alienate TR and the people who use it. The research data (done over the years by sports scientists and world class coaches) have determined the polarized training model is best: For amateurs, age groupers, olympians and world champions i.e., for everyone. So you're blurring the lines and casting doubt as to proper training and so are mitigating the TR and similar Peloton model; Neither represent proper endurance training.
You make a wrong statement at the beginning of your video. In research and Dylan's explanations, polarized includes threshold, and doesn't include sweetspot (80-90% ftp) work (on its own, no over unders).
This seems like a subtle plug for Trainer Road to me, in response to Dylan’s video. It is scientifically proven that going beyond 3 high intensity sessions per week does not induce further adaptation and can cause over-training. The is the problem with TR, imho. Too much intensity
Haha, I'm far, far from sponsored. Watch my other vids. I'll never get a sponsor, and I'm very happy about that. 🤣
@@JustinDoesTriathlon Never said you were sponsored 😊 I’ll check them out. Thanks
@@markbentley4343 Ha, you're good man. I don't blame you for thinking it's a subtle plug. I like TR and their stuff overall for sure. There's definitely enough sponsored fake 'review' BS on UA-cam as is. I just like bikes. :)
I still don’t think anybody has really taken the “Big Picture” into account.
It is so crazy to me that we’re debating Sweet Spot vs. Polarized. This is no-nonsense, because it is so obvious that high intensity training improves fitness faster than anything else.
Why is nobody talking about the big picture? Doing 3-4 blocks of nothing besides aerobic/subthreshold work to chase adaptations, and utilize those adaptions to build fitness with high intensity training?
I don’t think TrainerRoad has it right (way too many sweet spot workouts for their HV plan), but 0 studies that DJ referenced took the big picture into account. What would the results be if Group A did 12 weeks of base training, and 8 weeks of polarized compared to a group that did 20 weeks of the polarized block?
The comment section is dictated/convoluted by people who probably haven’t ridden 10,000 lifetime miles, and TR and Dylan Johnson both aim their videos towards that crowd. People are completely missing the mark of the big picture for the sake of UA-cam clout...it just seems silly.
Broadly speaking, I think I agree. It's all about trying to get the most outputs for the least inputs. People in the 30s and 40s and 50s were ripping strong with barely any real scientific understanding. Just rode a ton.
@JustinDoesTriathlon Yep, nothing wrong with it either! The more the merrier. DJ has a lot of great info to offer, as well as TR since they’re sitting on massive amounts of data, but the Sweet Spot vs. Polarized debate will always be upside down until we look at a full year of training compared to a few blocks.
Ironically, Seiler has some tweets from a few weeks ago where he talks about doing 1-2 hours of subthreshold to increase his durability. I feel like the correct answer is “There is a time and place for everything”, I’m just waiting on somebody to say it. 😅
@@ProfessorSteez Maybe I'll start coaching and charging tons of money and basically build out really complicated plans that are nothing more than "just ride a lot" but in very specific workouts. 🤣
You started with a uniquely weird definition of the three zone model and it went downhill from there. People need to read the studies and watch Seiler's explanations themselves - unfortunate how many UA-cam physiologists weighing in on training intensity will make this seem much more complicated than it is.
See the pinned comment. ;)
um..your definition of polarized is skewed. You do some threshold in polarized...just not that much. Also the bulk of training is sub 2mmol.or zones 1 and 2 in a 5 zone model. But 2hrs in zone 2 is not that much fun and can be stressful. In your 3 zone model you misdescribe zone one and two. Zone one is sub 2mmol of lactate. Zone 2 is 2-4 mmol of lactate
Threshold if you only have like 5 hours a week. Simple as that.
DJ’s video sent shockwaves through the indoor cycling world. Can’t wait for Trainerroad’s reply
Nothing like a nerdy deep dive on data to get cyclists in a fit. 🤓 It's that and sock length. But I'm super happy he made the video, even if I don't agree with all of it; pushing people to have critical discussions about things backed by evidence is really important imo.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon yeah you’re totally right mate. Keep those videos coming BTW!!
Zone 2 is 80-100% FTP. so quite a bit higher than recovery pace.
Zone 1 is up to 80% FTP, so quite a big zone to work with. Includes tempo of a 7 zone system...
Oh, you added a pinned comment about this, never mind 😋
You lost me when you said that the Threshold group doing ~1/2 z3 of Polarized (9% vs 20%) was taking away AAAALLL of their intensity.. that doesn’t really make sense!
What I think many are missing when looking at this is that it’s % “Time-In-Zone” not % workouts.. if I do an AWC workout (Coggan z6) it is 75-80% z1 (warmup, cool down & recovery).. AND IS STILL THE HIGHEST TSS/hr workouts I do.. 9% Time-In-Zone z1 when You’re doing a BOAT LOAD of SST is A LOT of z3.. AND Dylan actually did point out the same problem with that study.. THEN pointed to another “more realistic one” where they mixed in HIIT.. polarized still won…
My pet peeve.. you, Dylan etc.. why don’t you use TSS..??
It was intensity as self-reported by the participants before the study, VT2 and above (Zone 3 in a 3-zone model.) You can still do 'intensity' (which is up to Coggan 4) without getting above VT2 (Seiler Z3). I wasn't saying the POL group lost all intensity (quite the opposite, they went from 9% before to 20% after, more than doubling.) Rather, the threshold group went from doing a mix of Seiler 1,2,3 and moved down to only doing 1 and 2; We know that intensity is very important, and they lost theirs altogether. Re: TSS: I actually built out a sample POL plan using TR workouts that equaled 390min just for fun but cut it due to time of the video; it ended up being ~410 TSS IIRC. I like TSS overall, but it has its own limits too. TSS is a useful number, but not the only thing to know, and not all TSS is the same. 50TSS worth of effort at the beginning of a ride and at the end of a century are very, very different feeling, but they're both 'worth' the same.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon 1) Dylan actually ID’d same problem with that study and pointed to another more “realistic” one where the SST did more z3.. polarized still performed better..
2) As for TSS.. TSS is correlated with adaptation, not RPE.. the fact that it’s harder to do TSS at e.g. at end of a workout or in warmer weather is irrelevant.. TSS is essentially the currency you pay for adaptation.. so if want to qualify how much you accomplish in a workout.. Training Stress IS not a number.. it’s THE number.
I mean, I'm not disagreeing about #1, and #2... You're definitely right overall, but from what I've seen, there are still some asterisks. You can do 50TSS of sprint and do 50TSS of CogganZ1; both the same TSS, but you're not going to stimulate the same muscle fibers (IIB vs I). I think I basically agree with almost everything you're saying, and I think both you and Dylan are right overall, there's just some asterisks.
@@JustinDoesTriathlon yup.. I agree with that.. the mix of where that TSS comes from matters.. but given a suitable mix.. the total TSS will be a measure of volume how much you accomplished…
@@drapetomaniack Yep! I gotcha. Sorry it took me so long. My brain is pretty melted today
If TR actively dissuades the vast majority of its paying customers to NOT use certain plans (the high volume ones) then they are useless to TR's own customer base and should be removed. The people doing that volume of training are not paying TR, they are paying for a personal coach and a unique training plan prescribed by that coach.
70 % of all studies can’t be reproduced by other scientists. Hence anything called studies are worthless unless they are replicated by other scientists.
That said, most amateur cyclists will have the most benefit by simply having a plan. Polarized or not.
So much talking and said nothing.
i'm at a loss to understand the purpose of this video. having just watched the video you are critiquing (thank you youtube algorithm), nothing you mentioned is in disagreement with what the other guy said, and what the evidence shows. he mentions that sweet spot training can result in improved performance, but he is talking about which approach is best. interesting video, but unnecessary imo.