Why the week looks like this

Most days easy. One hard session, or none.

Most minutes stay talkable. Harder work is sparse and deliberate. The week is shaped by endurance papers and by your hours — checklists, not diagnoses, and not a brand loyalty to one intensity model.

Intensity distribution: Most minutes stay easy enough to hold a full sentence. Harder work is sparse and deliberate — not a brand loyalty to “polarized.” Seiler and Kjerland (2006) and Seiler (2010) described that easy–hard shape in endurance athletes as polarized or pyramidal. Esteve-Lanao et al. (2007) saw more easy-zone time track with better running. Newer syntheses are more cautious: Oliveira et al. (2024) found a polarized edge mainly on VO2peak and often in short or highly trained samples, not a clear win on time-trial or threshold for everyone. Rosenblat et al. (2025) found no overall polarized–pyramidal difference in an IPD network meta-analysis; competitive athletes may lean polarized, recreational runners often lean pyramidal. Ridgework starts from talkable easy and adapts to your hours and level, not an ideology. You can edit it.
Load as a week input: Foster’s session RPE (2001) is one number: how hard it felt, times how long. Bourdon et al. (2017) is the consensus version: write external work and internal response, then adjust the next session. You mark the session. If it was wrecked, or something hurts, the next hard day is rewritten easier. That is load monitoring. It is not Ridgework deciding you are tired, and it is not a medical test.
Taper as a planning pattern: Mujika & Padilla (2003): volume typically falls before the day, while some intensity stays in shorter doses, so fitness is expressed instead of buried under leftover fatigue. We write that as a 10–14 day block. Sleep and kit beat extra kilometres.

Honest caveats

Individual response varies. Age, history, terrain, and life stress change what works.
Published averages are not a prescription and do not replace a clinician when health questions arise.
This writes a starting week from what you tell it. It cannot watch you train, and it only knows the sessions you log.

Sources (Crossref-verified)

Seiler S (2010). What is Best Practice for Training Intensity and Duration Distribution in Endurance Athletes International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. doi:10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276
Oliveira PS, Boppre G, Fonseca H (2024). Comparison of Polarized Versus Other Types of Endurance Training Intensity Distribution on Athletes’ Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis Sports Medicine. doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02034-z
Rosenblat MA, Watt JA, Arnold JI, et al. (2025). Which Training Intensity Distribution Intervention will Produce the Greatest Improvements in Maximal Oxygen Uptake and Time-Trial Performance in Endurance Athletes? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data Sports Medicine. doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02149-3
Mujika I, Padilla S (2003). Scientific Bases for Precompetition Tapering Strategies Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000074448.73931.11
Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, et al. (2001). A New Approach to Monitoring Exercise Training Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(2001)015<0109:ANATME>2.0.CO;2
Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A, et al. (2017). Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. doi:10.1123/IJSPP.2017-0208
Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I (2007). Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31806010e0
Lauersen JB, Bertelsen DM, Andersen LB (2014). The effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis British Journal of Sports Medicine. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092538

All sources, and what each one is used for →

14 days free, no card. €19/month if you add one after. Cancel anytime.

Start 14 days free