the guys have stated again and again on the podcast that they believe sweet spot training is the most efficient not the best. most of us are time poor and simply dont have enough time to dedicate to a properly structured polarised plan to see the gains most of us are chasing. seeing that consistency is key when it comes to progression sweet spot training is easier to consistently fit into an otherwise busy lifestyle.
ridiculous
Unless you are a full distance triathlete, and then the gains you seek have a TR cycling path that includes a lot of endurance training. Okey dokey.
But what do they really mean with that and what do they base it on?
I agree that sweetspot can have its role in a training plan. I just see no scientific evidence at all that training plans where the vast majority of sessions are sweet spot based are the most efficient ones (of course this is most prevalent in their MV and HV plans).
Au contraire. You just can’t get around that endurance is a necessary element. Polarized and pyramidal both share this sentiment that endurance riding is essential.
Of course it could be that you are so severely timeconstrained that you can’t do proper polarized nor pyramidal training. In that case, I just think that even doing sweet spot intervals 3-4 days a week could be too much, because your ability to recover is likely also constrained.
We used to tip-toe around this on the forum, but now I think it’s more or less fine to express openly. If you are that time-constrained it really doesn’t matter what you do. You are not going to be fast. I can’t slam dunk, so I didn’t make it into the NBA. That’s the way it goes. If slamming intervals is a way to “keep it interesting”, no one is going to stop you.
In that case, I would just be doing a HIIT plan and shooting for general health and fitness. If I was that time constrained and had long weekends, then I’d do what’s mentioned above…a VO2 and a SS/Threshold workout during the week and then get in one or two “as long as possible” Zone 2 rides on the weekend.
I don’t even know what “that time constrained” is really. 5 hours a week to train? 7? 10?
As far as I can tell from this thread, nobody can agree on the clear definition of what polarized training means so for us “average joes” out there it doesn’t seem like we could do polarized training if we wanted to because it’s not clear how to implement it. Are the polarized TR plans actually polarized? I’m guessing many here don’t think so.
Yes, “that” time constrained. (exception: triathletes who have 5 hrs for bike training)
No, not “that” time constrained. Starting to matter how to structure, amount of Zone 2 and tempo, etc. For example, on 10 hrs I do almost no HIIT, but I don’t noodle around (see above for highly scientific definition noodling LOL)
I think people WAY over complicate training. What is time constrained? It’s less time than it takes to do a TR LV plan and add endurance. Simple.
What is polarized? It’s doing about 80/20, maybe 70/30. And it’s high volume. All this other talk is diving WAY into the details, and honestly, I think it’s counterproductive for 90% of us to go into those details.
I think the folks on forum who typically join the various threads just enjoy the heck out of the discussion.
On the bike, I’m going to train the way I’ve found enjoyable and productive for myself. Am happy to share those learnings and my own data. But with caveat that my approach may not translate to someone else, and may not even be a good approach at all.
Am also open to learning new things and grateful for folks who post them, provide links, etc.
Reason for a fixation on “polarized” is not that someone saw that pattern in elites or made it a thing. It’s that it tries to codify the one or two day a week hard approach. From there, it’s how to best use the available time. Or perhaps justify if additional time would yield additional gains. It’s hard to get good answers to this stuff while it seems that it shouldn’t be that hard to quantify (yet it is because there are only a few sources of data and those sources aren’t readily available - oh well!!)
In the end, I think, could be wrong, that solid plans with progressions built upon either 1-2 days a week threshold (sort of the current TR 'polarized") or one day a week VO2 plus one day a week threshold (or SST) with added Z2 would be great platforms for a lot of riders. But folks want guidance so they want the workouts spelled out and they want to know how much Z2 and what the target wattages should be. When we say easy, hard, tempo, we leave a lot of folks wondering how to implement.
$0.02
Fair enough, but I’d guess that beyond those few people who constantly compare and contrast, the vast majority of people clicking on a post are those learning about the concept for the first time. When someone starts talking about “We’ll, but you should spend 21.4586% of your time at 93.76972% of your FTP, unless you have extra time for endurance rides and then it should be 19.74398% of your time at 92.7835% of FTP”, the average user is going to shake their head. Then someone will reply and say “But in 1973 Seiller said something different” and someone will chime in with “yeah, but is FTP truly FTP and if not, are you really in the right zone?” and someone else will say, “ahh, but what is time really but a man made construct”, and you’ve left a lot of folks saying “ok, I’ll just do SS Base” 
I was just trying to make it as simple as possible for the average group user who just wants to train and be healthy. “But what is training really? And is healthy truly healthy? And wouldn’t Pbase be faster if he rode more and typed less?” 
LOL - Wouldn’t be such a fun forum if people didn’t type.
I over time have come to the conclusion that it isnt so much what plan I do…it is about the consistency that I have in training is what results in me being able to do well. I have toned down on the intensity and just ride easier a lot more then I ever used to. There is no detrimental effect that I have noticed in riding easier more often.
I agree. I don’t have the energy or expertise or willingness to get in the weeds of these discussions but sometimes I’m curious.
My goals are too modest to be overly concerned with much beyond training consistently, injury prevention, with some improvement along the way.
fun is not allowed. Only pain. You should be collapsing on the floor after every training workout. 
At the risk of belaboring the point, if folks have modest goals and are not willing to (or are simply not interested in) diving deep—all fine, normal, etc.—then why follow a TR plan? Or any plan? Why even structure it at all? I would just slam a bunch of group rides and drink beer. 
Not sure if my question makes sense, but I’m trying to get at the idea that as my time-commitment increases (and goals are a little more than modest, but not much), it becomes more important to structure it as best as I can.
Part of the reason we go on and on with some of these threads (besides learning something and I personally think it can be fun), is the idea that with such short amount of time you have to squeeze the juice out of every minute on the bike. That has without question been a strong theme since I started TR years ago. The prevailing attitude and philosophy is “yes you can optimize your precious time…here’s how”.
But it’s simply not true. It’s the opposite. The less time I’m on the bike, the less I care about how I spend it because the less it matters.
I can relate to not having the willingness or energy to get into the weeds. For example, you have never seen me involved in any thread involving a deraierler (I don’t even know how to spell it, but it’s that thing that changes my gears…there’s one on the front and one on the back…or sometimes just the back LOL). Or tires. But these are topics many cyclist are quite passionate about and enjoy exchanging ideas. Waxing, anyone? My goodness, no. I do not want to discuss waxing…anything–much less a bike chain. Sorry, anyway. Everybody likes bikes. Hopefully humor/light-heartedness is coming across…if not, I’ll recalibrate. 
I’m pretty sure it’s not binary, i.e. all the structure, or none of the structure. Even people riding 4-6hrs a week want to get fast(er). It’s all relative.
Don’t visit an estheticians forum
3-5 hours and drinking beer? Now that’s living the just go hard and talk s**t life!
personally like some structure no matter my goals. It helps keep me motivated. I’d point out that modest goals don’t necessarily mean easily attainable. I’ve used TR plans in the past for triathlons up to half distance triathlon. At that time I was a little more ignorant and didn’t understand the concept of dialing it down a notch when necessary and burned out on a plan. After that I hired a coach for my first IM. I liked her so much I’ve stuck with her since. But I’m mostly doing longer gravel events. For the longer distances with gravel it’s nice having a plan knowing that even though I’m not thinking of winning those long events at least I’m showing up after following a plan designed to have me prepared. Could I do those without a coach or structure? Sure. But I feel a lot better with that structure in place.
The polarized model, coupled with staying on top of my HRV tracking consistently, has been the answer to my current goals and general life stress. Having a job a bit north of 45-50 hours a week has never fully allowed me to recover even on the Trainer Road low volume plans. My HRV would tank and remain low for a while after a threshold or sweet spot session. Worse yet, my schedule was never consistent. Some days I would report to work at 6am while others I had the luxury of not going in until 10am. I would strategically perform the sweet spot or threshold intervals on the days I knew I could recover better and get more sleep. I no doubt became faster, but even the three days a week of intervals wore me down. I find that I can perform 1 to even 2 hours of a “Zone 2” ride (which I simply perform at 70% of maximal heart rate and this is what I just go with) on most days of the week and it is completely doable. My HRV is stable, my sleep isn’t altered, I am not having the effects of the workout carry over into the next day or “days”. This workload has been more manageable. I even managed to break a few 5 minute power records recently and I haven’t performed a sweet spot style interval in over two months. This probably won’t work for everyone, but, it’s what is working for me. At this point in my life I generally just try and find the limits of my own physiology. It would be interesting to really have the schedule and time train for a race, which I have never done. I would probably lean more towards pyramidal in that scenario based on all the feedback in the form and literature I have found. Nonetheless, at the end of the day a polarized approach makes me a sane person and that is what matters and makes me enjoy getting in the saddle each time I do.