because YouTube was not invented back when he was fast!
I kidā¦ he is probably faster now that I will ever be
1 Like
I think this isnāt fair since he followed it up with this
All heās saying is that it isnāt 100% of the pros which is true, right? This is a 2+ hour podcast that is available once a week, so either of us taking a 1 second caption screen grab really isnāt fair in that it does not provide enough context.
6 Likes
Possibly one of those āLegends in their own mindsā kind of rider 
Iād agree - age may be just as much an encumbranceā¦āall this modern rubbish, what we did in 1970 worked so why wonāt it work nowāā¦26 year olds are less likely to be hide bound.
Aftermath of a serious quarter life crisis. 
Thanks for the good wishes though. Itās appreciated.
2 Likes
How can you find TR response in this HUGE thread?
3 Likes
There hasnāt been any.
1 Like
Donāt worry, they havenāt made one.
1 Like
FWIW ā¦ I think Nate bring levity and chemistry to the podcast, and his shenanigans are my favorite part. Conversely, I find Trevor and the other guy on FastLabs almost impossible to listen to ā¦ no chemistry, plenty of forced laughter.
So ā¦ different strokes, you know?
11 Likes
How does he know itās not 100%? And whatās his classification of āproā?
As well, he prefaced that with (paraphrasing) āknow any pros who became pro by doing POL for their entire career?ā, which is an obvious garbage and inflammatory take on ANY training modality.
Did KG get to be pro by doing only sweet spot and threshold for his entire career?
As stated, the commentary should have ended with Chadās response.
1 Like
Except the irony being that the advice given to me (in the 90s) by a (then) old pro is remarkably close, in ballpark terms, to the polarized model now widely talked upā¦
1 Like
I also think Nate is almost a poster boy for not doing HV at this point. He constantly has issues (think sinus infections that wonāt go away for months or years, lingering illnesses, skipped or failed workouts, etc).
He is still faster than I am for sure, but the issues he has with heavy volume on his own program should be a warning to most people in my opinion.
12 Likes
At the root, what is really being discussed in this thread is efficacy vs. effectiveness.
Just because something studied āin a labā is found to be more efficacious does not mean it will be more effective than something else in the real world.
This is true in medicine all of the time - and is why people study real world evidence.
I would argue that TR has built their plans aimed at effectiveness. Coaches working one on one with clients can better monitor their athlete and therefore are more likely to focus on efficacy.
3 Likes
Preach it. You and I are just about the same including the hilly outdoor rides where it is impossible to ride Z1 and Z2 if I want to actually make it up the hills at any pace over 3 mph. I ride LV and canāt handle much more than an hour twice a week during the week with my work schedule and family obligations. On the weekends in the winter, I can easily spare 2 to 3 hours each day for rides. During the Fall, Spring, and Summer when I ride outside, one of those days will be less than two hours and one will be a three to four hour group ride.
It seems like for those in our situations, DJās video just reaffirmed that TR may be absolutely perfect and ideal for us, especially in the winter where I donāt have more intense outdoor rides. It seems like his video suggests that LV may be a proper amount of intensity, even if he doesnāt agree on polarized vs. SS.
3 Likes
Heās talking to a pro rider who just said that he doesnāt use polarized training. I guess that we can argue about classification of pro, but that doesnāt seem productive.
I donāt think that he was saying that KG has never touched an endurance ride or a VO2 max interval either. Nate was just pointing out that there are different training modalities that are practiced by professional riders. Thatās not a controversial stance, is it?
1 Like
Itās funny ā¦ I am just like Nate in that regard. I can handle 500 TSS ā¦ and I can maybe eke out a week of 600 - 700 ā but it has to be mainly at low intensity and has to be structured just right or I get sick just like Nate does every time. If I do back to back 600+ weeks, Iām generally off the bike the following week.
1 Like
I have little experience with TR. When I started, looking at STT plans and general / short power builds, I felt that MV and HV were actually for people having way more than 10 hours to train (and still may be too hard).
I do around 10 hours per week following low volume plans and adding endurance rides both indoor and outdoor. It makes my training pyramidal or polarized depending on the plan and volume of endurance i can add.
5 Likes
3 Likes
I am in the same boat. I was 500-600 TSS each week this year from the first week of may though the end of June (hit by a car so derailed training a bit), and had no issues, but most of this was endurance to sweet spot solo rides outside. Just cruising around at a good clip, but not killing myself.
I feel way closer to being burnt out these days after just wrapping up SSBHV1. I know people say it all the time on here, but all TSS is not equal. 10 hour at .63 IF is way easier for me to deal with than 7 hours at .89 IF.
1 Like
It is when you present it in a negative manner as the ONLY modality ever used in order to promote your own anchored modality (i.e. commercial success).
3 Likes