Hi Fred, actually we are 100% proponents of what we belive the principals definining Polarized Training. But we would use that to the nature of what Dr. Seiler is describing not “the numbers.” If you listen to Dr. Seilers talks for example he says don’t chase numbers. Anyway. What he is proposing is more easy rides and less hard rides. He says 80/20 but he actually contradicts this and even his daughter says she does a Polarized plan from her dad doing 1 hard day followed by 2 easy days. His studiest are not long duration plans so again I would go with the nature of what he says rather than specifically looking at numbers.
Our Polarized plan generally will be 1 workout a week with his Zone 3 intervals (3-zone system), this fully follows the nature of Polarized training in my opinion. When Dr. Seier did this tests he was doing 5-days a week of training. I have not heard him specifically say it but I bet if we asked him if you train 4 days a week and do 1 hard day he would also constitued that as Polarized. I think he is talking about people doing 5+ workouts a week.
So because his study was 9-weeks long that is not enough time to say this is a good training plan for the entire year so we have also build traditional recovery patterns into this “Polarized” plan so we could call that Polarized+
Secondly if you look at time in zone we are less than Dr. Seilers 90/10 for TIZ “max limit.”
You can see the TIZ below it is 12 minutes of the entire week that is in Zone 3 the rest of the week is in Zone 1 (defined by him as below 80% but that is individual).
If I am wrong here please let me know. Finally we also add more “old school” practices into polarized by still doing volume / intensity manipulation and progressive overload. These are principals that are more proven than Polarized but we add them into a “Polarized+” plan.
If you look at the nature of all our plans they are all significantly more time in Zone 1 (less than 80%) than most platforms and plans out there.