📣 Polarized Plan Updates! 📣

[tjd]

@Jonathan

That’s an incorrect assumption. Without controlling for compliance, you get data that just doesn’t represent the plan accurately.

This is frighteningly inaccurate. There is a reason intent to treat is the gold standard. Compliance is a part of real world effectiveness.

Nonetheless, I’d be cautious drawing any real conclusions regardless, as other folks have mentioned self selection likely means you can’t adequate control for differences between pol and non-pol athletes.

[Jonathan]

@patricksudol

Is there a reason when AI FTP is used that it replaces the Ramp Test with a Sweet Spot workout as opposed to VO2 Max in Polarized Build?
@Jonathan

This is a bug we are looking into. For now, I’d recommend manually swapping that for a productive or achievable Threshold workout (if you are in Base), or a VO2max or Threshold workout (if you are in Build).

[Jonathan]

@stevious

Big fan of the polarised plans here. For me it’s just been nice to try something other than the sweet spot plans while still getting the adaptive training goodness.

I’d love to see more detail about how you’ve compared the plans. Would it be possible to publish your methodology without giving away too much secret sauce?

I don’t have any visuals or further break down to share as of now. This is something we need to get better at.

[Jonathan]

@tjd

This is frighteningly inaccurate. There is a reason intent to treat is the gold standard. Compliance is a part of real world effectiveness.

I didn’t mean to imply that controlling for compliance means we think the compliance rate of a plan is unimportant or that it shouldn’t be analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner.

Compliance rate is a big focus of ours, and one of the things we hope to see improve with these changes.

[aecky01]

Thanks @Jonathan. I want to make sure I’m understanding correctly. Polarized plans have a high percentage of endurance workouts, if you’re endurance progression level is higher (mines only 5 at the moment) then to create a novel stimulus and adaptation you end up doing a number of higher PL endurance workouts and those inherently are longer in duration. Therefore if you are a time crunched athlete like myself (I can usually get in 4-6 hours of structured training a week, but only 1 hour on work days early in the morning) then these polarized plans may not be the best option for you.

I did the polarized plans at the end of 2022 to switch things up and focus on base building. I really enjoy the different approaches TR has to plans. Between SSB, Traditional and Polarized (not to mention all the specialty plans) it gives a lot of flexibility to adapt your training to your life stresses and commitments. Thanks for all the hard work!

[Jonathan]

@aecky01

Thanks @Jonathan. I want to make sure I’m understanding correctly. Polarized plans have a high percentage of endurance workouts, if you’re endurance progression level is higher (mines only 5 at the moment) then to create a novel stimulus and adaptation you end up doing a number of higher PL endurance workouts and those inherently are longer in duration. Therefore if you are a time crunched athlete like myself (I can usually get in 4-6 hours of structured training a week, but only 1 hour on work days early in the morning) then these polarized plans may not be the best option for you.

I think it would be tough with your schedule since you are limited to 1hr per day during the week. You could use Workout Alternates to pick 1hr long endurance workouts, but at that point there are likely more efficient ways to train amongst the other options you pointed out.

Glad to hear you’re finding all of the flexibility useful!

[Bgrim]

ITT is a concept in prospective RCTs, I’m not sure that your use here is quite correct. Controlling for confounders in retrospective data is different from trying to identify compliance issues in an RCT.

Intention-to-treat concept: A review

[tjd]

@Bgrim

ITT is a concept in prospective RCTs, I’m not sure that your use here is quite correct. Controlling for confounders in retrospective data is different from trying to identify compliance issues in an RCT.

ITT is not exclusively a concept in RCTs, and whether a study is prospective or retrospective has no bearing. If you’re trying to compare two interventions, controlling away adherence is a good way to get the wrong answer.

[Bgrim]

Not the point of what’s being discussed here anyway, but the point of ITT analysis is to maintain the proper randomization that occurred at the outset of a trial. That said, I think we all take your point that compliance/palatability is important. See @OreoCookie suggestion above:

@OreoCookie

If you want to find out whether compliance is meaningfully different, the best way is for TR to randomly select people when they build training plans with Plan Builder and substitute polarized blocks for the default ones. You need to ensure that the two populations (polarized vs. control with vanilla TR plans) are statistically similar enough to arrive at meaningful conclusions.

[Simon1975]

Awesome news. I’ve been in polarised for 2 seasons now and find them really spot on given that I’m adding high intensity weight training to cycling workouts. Another fantastic update TR team!

[CTVR6]

I’m in the middle of Polarized Build after having completed Polarized Base. I did not use Plan Builder and am wondering if I delete my existing Polarized Build (after noting the start date per Jonathan’s instructions) then add the updated Polarized Build on the same start date, would doing so only change my workouts going forward? Or would I loose all the previous workouts/data/etc. that I have already completed for this Build?

Thanks in advance. I just started w/ TR after riding very inconsistently for many years and I am super enjoying the Polarized plans and structured training!

[Timothy]

Whenever I’ve deleted a plan before any and all workouts that had been completed up to that point have stayed on the calendar.

[MI-XC]

I’ve been a SS user on TR for all my plans for 4+ years. This update has interested me enough to give it a go for my rebuild later in the season. Which will be 3 weeks of polarized Base, polarized Build then RRR Specialty. Excited to try something new and compare results.

[ChefAcB]

I really want to try these plans but on the fence. Mostly because work during the week and 2 hours of endurance won’t happen. I know longer is better, but what about back to back 90 minute endurance rides?

I could consistently do that, I just wonder if I’m missing the forest for the trees or whatever that quote it

[Pbase]

The mid-volume plans only have 2+ hour rides once during the work week. If you’re saying you could do 90, but not 120-150 during the week, I would think you can shorten that one endurance workout to 90 and then add the additional minutes back on the long weekend ride without altering the spirit of the plan too much.

[sblive]

What’s the reasoning behind limiting Base phase workouts to Threshold zone only?

[Jonathan]

@sblive

What’s the reasoning behind limiting Base phase workouts to Threshold zone only?

A significant portion of athletes following these plans noted that they wanted to avoid VO2max work in the Base Phase. From a coaching perspective, this change allows athletes to reside within the Polarized framework and still get the appropriate balance of low and high intensity work in order to build aerobic base.

[sblive]

Alright, so what if I am the exact opposite of those athletes? i.e. I much prefer doing vo2max over threshold - I am more likely to attempt (and/or complete) a vo2max workout over a threshold one at a similar level of intensity.

Should I stick to build plans throughtout the season? Or attempt base, but swap thr for vo2max?

[Jonathan]

I’d suggest your latter approach and swap your Threshold workout for a Productive VO2max workout.

[sblive]

Cool, thanks!