I’m in my second week of the Polarized build program with AT enabled. I just completed Hualapei (2x16 at 105%) and wasn’t able to complete the second interval. I pushed through it on standard resistance and finished it at about 90% of the prescribed power. After relaunch I still have a 3x16 scheduled for next Friday. I don’t see how this could be an accurate progression, particularly accounting for “adaptive training”.
Has anyone had a similar experience?
AT is not set to properly handle and adapt the POL plans at this time. You are mixing a beta product (AT) with an experimental plan (POL), so they are not fully integrated and working like the normal plans.
Yeah I’m a little disappointed that 7 months after the big AT announcement, it’s still in Beta and not integrated with the polarized plans. I’m also wondering if the POL plans weren’t slapped together in response to Dylan’s video and almost designed to fail to “prove TR’s approach is superior”.
Gonna stick with it for a while and give it a full evaluation.
I love the idea of AT and polarized but I know it’s not where it should be at the moment. I’ve resorted to making workouts in plan builder or Training Peaks to make the progression a bit more manageable.
There’s a great thread on threshold progressions that would be work checking out.
Though they might not be fully integrated I briefly used a polarized plan with AT last month and I would get some adaptations. They were a bit limited because it would only swap for other workouts within the other polarized plans. So for the threshold workouts you were basically stuck with 4/8/16min intervals at 100/102/104% with varying rest in between. So you wouldn’t get as smooth of a progression as you might from the traditional plans that are pulling from more workouts so maybe you could get a 8->12->16->20 min at FTP progression.
also need to ask if you added the Pol plan using Plan Builder? AT only makes adaptions if you set everything up with Plan Builder and loads of people miss this.
Bigpikle https://www.trainerroad.com/forum/u/bigpikle
October 15also need to ask if you added the Pol plan using Plan Builder? AT only
makes adaptions if you set everything up with Plan Builder and loads of
people miss this.Yep I’m one of the loads….Just rebuilt it through plan builder
Visit Topic
You can add Polarized through Plan Builder? The only place I see to add it is under Training Plans. When I use Plan Builder it defaults to Sweet Spot.
You can update the plan for a specific block block in the future after you created/added it through Planbuilder. This would be done by clicking on a training block on the first day it starts in the calendar:
I assume this would mean any plan I select here would still work with AT but that is conjecture.
From Support
Can anyone reference where this was publicized by TR prior to this? I’m trying to stay up on all the caveats and conditions for using what TR makes available. Seems like we’re often left to read between the lines and come to these kinds of conclusions ourselves.
Not shooting the messenger at all as @mcneese.chad is a fantastic volunteer contributor to the betterment of this community – but I have to admit I’m a bit disappointed by all this. If you take the beta and experimental concepts literally, the message is: AT beta might work and add some value, but it’s not real yet so don’t count on it. Oh, and POL plans? Not even as close as AT – but we put it out there so you can be a guinea pig…
Sigh…
On the Polarized Training launch thread:
where I believe “designed constraints” of General Build are:
while the designed constraints of Short Power Build are:
whereas polarized is likely closer to:
Lets say you swap out General Build and replace it with the 8-week Polarized. The problem is that AT ‘knows’ general build should equally push (pic above) sweet spot and threshold and vo2max WHILE minimizing endurance & high/burst power. But Polarized is somewhat the opposite and you should be maximizing endurance and vo2max/high-power/burst-power. Let’s call that AT confusion. Does AT confusion have a material impact on AT? Do I understand the issue correctly? Ask TR.
@bbarrera, I obviously didn’t see the obvious info – thanks for pointing it out.
While you’re a mere youth in my world:), I always find your additions to the discussion thoughtful and well-researched. Lots to learn from them.
Keep in my mind that is merely my interpretation of what was written, and what was said on the launch podcast. So take it with a grain of salt.
Where did you find the “Designed constraints” bar graphs? I’m interested in the Sustained Power and Half Distance Tri plans.
TR macOS app.
Thanks, I normally access TR via the phone app, so I hadn’t seen these before.
Same here. The confusing mishmash of supported functionality is a bit disconcerting. It seems that TR thinks most people use a Mac or Windows computer whereas I reckon most people use their smartphone. I’m using my iPad.
There’s always, IME, been differences between the app on various platforms. Sometimes it’s the technology on each that leads to a difference, sometimes it’s just timeframes of SW development.
TR will know the relevant user numbers on each platform.
I only ever use the iOS app on the iPad when I’m doing indoor workouts, for everything else I use the web interface via my desktop. My desktop is too old to run the version of OS required for the desktop app and I find smartphone apps a general pain (plus my phone currently has a cracked screen so it’s an extra pain to use)
