My typical cycling year is stuctured around a big April sportive, a couple in the summer and a couple in the autumn/Fall. All in and around the 150k. I just like these long rides, very Zen for me. At this time of year my old plan was usually to use my long Sunday ride to increase my time in the saddle using the +10% rule. I would just back it off from my B race which is a flat 150 next week. Then start the serious prep for the hilly 150 in April by route picking and surges at the top and bottom of the hour on the Sunday ride. The rest of the week I would pretty much fill in as per: VO2’s on Tuesday and Thresholds Thursday/Saturday, with a smattering of pootles thrown in on the other days.
Now I am an old boy. I have been using TR for yonks. I generally followed the original TR prescription which was that the Sunday ride in the plan was a long edurance ride: Solo or group. Then I left TR to fill the rest of the calander. It worked out well for me. A couple of other relevant things on my calendar. About this time last year I slid out on gravel and bust my hip. After recovery for most of the middle of the year I was on the road with work so I switched to running. A hole in my historical data. I got back on plan in October but I had the usual drop outs for colds/ work etc. Then after AI big bang I had a big drop in my FTP. I wasn’t that bothered; I only use it as a metric for progress and a guide for pacing on the road. It has been noted the actual training watts didn’t change. I replanned then as the entry to my A race went live more or less at the same time. Thursday and Sunday were set as Dynamic endurance. There’s the rub…..
At no point in this plan have I had an endurance ride beyond 1:15 hours…. Sundays are all below an hour, a sort of pointless dose to my mind. Indeed If I delete it, as I have had to do on a couple of occasions when travelling, there was no impact on the predicted FTP. Any attempt I made to mod the plan and put in my usual 3+ hour rides showed drops in FTP below my current level which had already been set at a historical low for me. As I said, just a number but it’s the direction of travel that matters. Now I get it, fitness building for long rides does not depend on covering the distance. For me at least I think all the other peripheral adaptions do. My dodgey shoulders need working up to that time on the bars. My guts absolutely need to remember how to feed under load and my boney arse totally and absolutely needs babying up to that length of time supporting my creaky old bones. Finally my clapped out old noggin needs easing on up to that prolonged level of situational awareness. That was the reason I crashed last year. I lost my usual road awareness in a turn near home. one that I knew was rough with gravel. I was tired and white line happy. None of these things are developed by short sessions on a trainer.
The other thing that is bothering me is that usually at this time of year I am bobbling along between -20 and -30 on the Form scale. With the odd excursion into the sub 30 area. Promptly followed by a rest week and climb towards -10. With this plan I am just hovering around -10.
As I said I have been with TR forever and the results have been good, so I am sticking with the plan. It would be a lie to say I am not a bit anxious about these upcoming long rides. I do them to enjoy them, not suffer through them (although that has happened in the past… pre TR of course).
8 Likes
I’m having a similar experience with the AI, I ride a lot of Audax, this year I’m aiming to get the 50 for 50 award, which means I’ll be riding long (ish) most weekends, you get 1point for every 100km ridden basically. I agree that the AI plan (and FTP prediction) doesn’t seem to like such volume, I suppose it sees it as a whole load of fatigue, but that’s the type of cycling I love these days, gone are the days where I would sit in all day on a beautiful summers day only to go and race a TT down a dual carriageway for 20 minutes on a Saturday night, like yourself, my long rides are my release from reality.
One aspect of the latest update I’ve discovered is the ability to place AI workouts on your calendar in advance, unlike TrainNow which is just for that particular day, I’m toying with just doing this a week at a time, so depending on the time of year I might start out with sweetspot, tempo and endurance workouts and then as the year progresses add in the VO2 workouts and threshold. I’m thinking that this will allow me to indulge my long rides at the weekend but utilise TR for picking the best workouts in the week given my level and fatigue at that time, it might cost me a few watts overall but trying to follow a AI plan without my long rides looks like a pretty soulless experience to me, especially as I just need to be fit enough to enjoy my rides not race them.
1 Like
The fatigue acquired from endurance is one your body will adapt and get stronger from. Yes, at first fatigue may hurt the top end FTP but in the long term you will be better off. Endurance helps you hold a higher pace before fatiguing. This is especially important in long distance events and in my opinion should be the cornerstone of any long endurance training program. But that’s me.
4 Likes
Completely agree, I’ve come back to TR after they did their Xmas advertising blitz, but I’m not wholly convinced it’s the best fit for what I do, seems very volume phobic.
2 Likes
TR is great for what it is and definitely makes you faster. Most people have 10ish hours or less per week and I think their training plans are pretty good for that. And now you can select dynamic endurance and set your rides for longer durations. It gives you a warning when setting up your plan that training stress is high but you can certainly do more volume. The endurance rides may not show up (and even scale back) the immediate ftp prediction but as I said, in the long run you are “toughened up” for lack of a trendy term.
3 Likes
It does not depend only on the long rides but they are an important part of building for long distance. You need both endurance and stamina. There seems to be a bit of a disdain for the longer rides now. I would say that if you have the time then include them. That does not mean you neglect the much shorter higher intensity either. Just have a smart schedule, so you are recovered for the higher intensity work. Build out that durability that only gets found out at the longer distances and duration.
3 Likes
There was another post regarding an issue with the Dynamic timed rides. I also had had some issues with it. I think if you go into your custom training plan and adjust it there, it might reset it. Seems to be working solid for me now, although it often tries to reset it from the Dynamic (2.5-3hrs usually) to a basic Endurance (90min or similar) due to yellow day. lol So i have to say no, I want the Dynamic Endurance ride still.
At 3hr max currently because of indoor… don’t really want to go longer :-/ …soft
4 Likes
Yeah. I have been playing last weekend in preparation for the bit after my B ride. I think that there are two things in play here: Where one is in the plan and how long you go on that endurance ride. Initially I was up to 3 hour rides before the Big bang; more or less my criteria for a useful dose. So I tried to work on from there. That had a big impact on the plan. Now if I do 2 or so hours it seems agnostic on the predicted FTP. After my B-race I will probably follow you on that.
I do like the picks AI is coming up with. It seems a lot more doable than before. Although it seems there is no sweet spot anymore. VO2-Endo-Thres-Endo. Probably just a function of the phase in the plan ie Build/Speciality
I am not so sure about the SweetSpot… I have not had a Sweetspot in weeks and I am in Masters LV Base 3 (for 243mi A race in Aug1st) ….
Could be how I have my plan (3 rides per week) because of running, 2 interval workouts and a dynamic on Sunday. (2.5hr long run saturday and MWF easy/recovery short runs)
Interesting that this weekend that my Dynamic is 2:15 which then in turn drives two yellow days for Mon/Tue… and Tuesday is a hard vo2max day. Seems like it would regulate down to prevent that? Not that I have a problem with it, but is interesting. Seems like for A races longer then 6 or 8hrs that it would allow for or even encourage the increase of the dynamic endurance ride, maybe put easier workout following it (SS).
Just has me wondering, similar to people on the Garmin forum following their (faulty) Marathon plans and them asking 6weeks out from the their 1st marathon…. “Garmin only has me doing 1hour long runs, shouldn’t I be increasing them…?!?! “ lol …too late now :-/
2 Likes
TR AI has shown that volume is much less important than human coaches think. You are better off doing 5hr of intensity than 15hr of work with lots of endurance.
And it’s shown that in a couple of months, has it?
Behave. 
1 Like
In a couple months? Obviously not, but is has evidently shown it with the data they do have.
For who…. Context is important here. Are you talking about the world tour or the parent with a full time job? And what are you using as the “bar” for comparison here? What is “better off” mean?
1 Like
TR has a huge data set, and I wouldn’t be surprised ay all if new or changed training approaches came out of it. Massive dataset often discover things that as humans we’re just not able to analyze properly.
However, we need to remember that the data they have is skewed to their user base, which for the most part is going to be enthusiastic amateurs without all the time in the world to train. What’s best for us average joe’s may not be what’s optimal for a full time pro. I think it’s important to remember that.
5 Likes
For everyone, its literally why all of their rides go up in intensity as you improve and not increase in volume.
1 Like
So the professional on the world tour only needs to do is 5 hours of intensity and they are good?
Intensity isn’t the only thing that “moves the needle.”
2 Likes
Who is suggesting that?
If one is working full-time with busy kids and has 5 hours a week, should they train like a pro?
1 Like
@StarTracker did. (At least I think that’s what they’re saying when they said “everyone.”) They also implied volume doesn’t increase fitness… Or at least how I’m reading it. But maybe I’m misinterpreting their post.
1 Like
TR seems to have the data that suggests people are better off with more intensity and less volume, I think we need to trust the AI over what the coaches are doing.