You could do a 150tss long ride, a 75tss vo2 ride, and a 75tss sweet spot ride per week for a total of 300tss/wk and hit all of that stuff. Work up to 200/100/100 and we might be onto something
Do you know if thereās a way of tracking average weekly IF in Training Peaks?
I have that, but not WK04.
I dont think so. i do it manual.
Yes you are right. Looking back, that day I was really tired, after a couple of very early shifts at work, and I overreacted to the last part of the comment. I am āallergicā to people telling others to āstop thinking for yourself, and just do what you are told!ā I know (now) thatās not really what @MI-XC meant, and I apologize for that.
I should have focused on the first half of the comment, and have provided more information. I wanted the discussion to be as general as possible, so it would apply to everyone considering how to structure their training week, but after reading the comments above, I concede that the type of training matters a lot. As @Captain_Doughnutman noted, six days of VO2max a week, might not be the most enticing prospect 
and six short endurance rides is probably not going to do (as) much good as fewer longer ones. It will probably also not give you a fatigue resistance on par with MVDP 
I started thinking about this, inspired by the Eastern European/Russian training philosophy of less hard - more often, where each workout is intentionally not so hard, so your body can recover and train again the next day. That way, the total volume is as high or higher than going hard every other day. This philosophy is AFAIK used mainly in sports where technical skills are important, such as jiu-jitsu, boxing and weightlifting, where it makes sense to train less hard and focus on improving skills every day. Thus, it might not be applicable to cycling, but I thought Iād ask the TR community.
As noted above, it might be a good idea for things where proper execution is important, such as form sprints perhaps?
Once again, sorry for the poor attitude previously!
10 Likes
Thank you for your reply. I think this is a great forum and far more ācivilizedā than other cycling forums I have visited.
Hopefully, you will get the information you are seeking.
Regards.
1 Like
@Zahlmiac you quickly dismissed that early reply with:
In your questions, think of TSS as a cap on length of workouts. Its not the real question IMHO.
That early reply by mathewsparents is part of the answer, and the other part is implied. If you are doing a 4 week block of sweet spot, threshold, or vo2max work, then you should focus on 3 workouts per week in order to get enough time-in-zone, and to make each week progressively harder by increasing time-in-zone. In my opinion the questions to ask yourself are - with limited training time will I get enough time-in-zone doing 3 or 6 workouts per week, and can I progressively increase time-in-zone in weeks 2 and 3?
I find the formula for TSS completely sucks for me. Two 80 TSS rides can create completely different levels of stress.
Of course, because it is a single figure designed to tell you something else. It is not a ride stress score. It is a training stress score. (see earlier post)
Iām not sure I follow. Could you further explain this:
Wouldnāt doing twice as many, half as long workouts, give the same time in zone? (Say, doing one workout with 40 min Z4 or two workouts with 20 min Z4 each). That might not give the same adaptions though, and that is really what I would like to know more about. How does the way you split up your weekly workload affect the adaptions and your recovery?
I get your point about the importance of progressing the time in zone and I can see that will be hard, if you adhere to my proposed TSS based structure. I should probably describe it based on time instead, which is what matters when scheduling anyway.
The question could then be:
What would the differences be between doing 3 x 90 minutes vs 6 x 45 minutes, when the workouts are similar (except for the duration) and the weekly workload (time in zone and TSS) is the same? Will the answer depend on which training phase you are in/what type of training you are doing? (from previous comments, I would say that is a Yes)
It would also seem, that some people respond better to one than the other.
Yup.
Thereās a few posts in the forum (god knows where!) which present studies of the different types of ārespondersā ā volume or intensity.
Not sure thereās a way to tell which type you are except to try different training over time. The study also comments that most riders overvalue intensity and undervalue volume. Take from that what you will.
[edit: found ā
https://alancouzens.com/blog/vol_int_responder.html
Unfortunately, you/we/us are most likely an average or low responder (to V and I). ]
2 Likes
Sorry for the late reply, but thanks a lot for link. I read the article and the two related ones on his site. Interesting stuff! Since I donāt have the avaliable time to do a lot of volume, Iām hoping I am an intensity responder but as you say, Iām likely notā¦ Sadly
This 
TSS and FTP ā¦ quit chasing a number for the sake of chasing a number.
While I do not advocate anyone should stop thinking or trying to understand the plans, there are many who if they ājust follow the planā would actually improve and learn something in the process of doing so. It is all too common for someone to get a plan online, via TR (Coach Chad), or even via a personal coach and then decide they know better. In this case, why bother with a plan?!
1 Like
Or a coach?