Excellent point there. Perhaps Trainerroad have taken the purist path with Polarized, not sure why - I can only speculate they’re trying to disarm any criticism in advance.
For me, having 2/3 of all workouts be easy rather than 80% (just in order to have Seiler’s implicit approval) would make more sense, but maybe I’m not really in the market for a Polarized plan.
Yes. I know many people who do 3 hour trainer rides on Saturday or Sunday. Just throw on GCN+ or a movie. If you’re going to do a Polarized or Traditional base plan, you’ve got to put in the long slow easy rides.
I think these new plans are a great edition to TrainerRoad, especially as they mature over time.
One criticism I have is that the some of the POL plans don’t have consistent training time from week to week. For example, the mid volume 6-week plan goes from 5.75 hours in week 1 to 8.75 in week 5. The mid volume 8-week plans goes form 5.5 hours in week 1 to 9.7 hours in week 7.
Maybe Polarized plans aren’t for me because I only have 5-6 hours of week to train. So I’ll probably stick with a pyramidal plan. However, training time per week is a major factor when amateurs pick a plan. So I think it would be important to have a reasonably similar training time from week to week.
oh, he is
It’s called progressive overload, you won’t get faster doing that low of intensity at the same amount of time every week. You have to slightly increase time or intensity to increase your fitness.
Edit: I do the low volume “pyramidal” plans for the reason of being time crunched. I can’t do 2 hour weekday rides unless I call out from work 
I mean, Nate specifically says that 80/20 workout days is impossible with low volume from a logistics point as it would only give you two hard workouts over the course of three weeks. They follow the workout days model with all the other plans, but with such low volume for LV, it doesn’t make sense to do the same there. Then again, they do intend to update these plans as they gather data, see compliance and understand how it affects people’s FTP/fitness. So they’re trying to keep it similar enough to the other LV plan layouts to make them comparable for that purpose as well.
i’m excited and scheduling a polarized block right now! i have to say i’m shocked about the amount of threshold work though. but i’ll give it a try. thanks guys!
Yes the threshold work looks pretty crazy but that mean I might have to adjust my ftp which I am ok with and then work from there. Ftp is not the end all be all for me though.
Already scheduled mv 6 week plan and looking forward to it. I did most of the Tb plans and liked those as well.
I am wondering who can hold the ramp test derived „ftp“ for one hour? I think that’s the core of the problem.
These look like some interesting options! I’ve only been riding a few years and feel like I’ve never established that LSD foundation that decades-long riders often have.
A couple questions - First, it’s been said a couple times that the 6 week versions are considered Base and the 8 week versions are Build. Does that hold true for HV as well where the 6 week version has higher TSS, time in saddle and a 5:1 work/rest week ratio compared to the 8 weeks 3:1?
Also, I am doing “basically” a fondo in a few months (part gravel race, transition to road race, then MTB race to finish) Would there be any argument for just sticking with a POL plan all the way through instead of moving to the Century Specialty?
Exicting times! Thanks TR!
Hahah not many if they are honest. I usually go by my NP over 2+ hours to judge my gains. If I can hold higher power for longer distances/time I know I am getting fitter and make adjustments there. This is why my endurance rides are key for me.
And let’s not forget, Seiler says to assess FTP by 60 minute test. So if TR are going exactly by what Seiler has said…
Currently, I am in SSBMV I and a couple of weeks away from SSBMV II. The only alteration is adding an easy ride on one of the off days and subbing a long ride for one of the long SS sessions on some weekends. Things have been going well, but I am intrigued by the POL plans since that is how I trained the second half of last year with some pretty good success.
During my next block, I will be racing in the Zwift Racing League on Tuesday’s. I plan to treat these as workouts/“C” events, but I want to perform decently to not let my team down 
My questions for the group are:
I am super-impressed with the knowledge on the forum and hoping to get some free advice 
This is what Sailer does.
And this forum along with the staff are amazing.
My interpretation is that the 6 week plan is Base and the 8 week is Build.
I already started doing some polarized training this week based on the “leaked” plans, but now the official 8 week polarized MV plan is on my calendar. I should have the time and I was getting a bit bored of SS, so I’m looking forward to this.
I don’t mind riding long times indoors, just did 2h45mins Today. It’s a good time for various activities like reading a book, watching youtube/netflix and catching up on this forum! But it looks like the workouts should also translate pretty well to outdoor riding once all the snow and ice is gone here; the Z3 intervals are pretty simple in structure and the Z1 rides outdoors are always enjoyable.
This is in no way a criticism, just an observation. I normally do low volume and these look boring to do indoors. I am not saying that won’t be effective and I understand why they’re look boring, but for me the challenge of the non polarised would get me more excited to get on the bike.
I live in upstate NY where the hills roll and therefore get quite steep. I think the lowest amount of elevation I can get on a ride around here is 40-50 feet/mile.
How do you guys do long low intensity z2 rides with this in mind? I basically have to do threshold minimum (recently got a 32 in the back so at least I’m not doing vo2!). My w/kg is ~3.5 so I’m not slouching on the climbs, it just takes a minimally high amount of power just to keep the bike moving. Do you just do it? Or can this hamper the gains that a ‘long slow’ z2 type ride should be providing?
