Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. TID has been talked about a lot due to Seiler so people are making false assumptions about a lot of these topics across the spectrum due to frequency illusion.
For the plan adjustment it’s optimizing our plans.
For the data scientists the levels/progressions will help them implement other plans.
But the ML FTP prediction will help us figure out what’s right for you. That’s the part that isn’t in the current beta but we’re working hard on it. That is where it will show different FTP improvements for different volumes; and it’s not always that extra volume is more improvement which I find really interesting.
I also suspect we’ll decouple it from FTP and be more with progression + FTP and normalize it.
Once we get that a little better, I suspect we’ll run different TID and training aspects through it to get a rough idea. Then after that, I suspect we’ll build another ML system to build plans/blocks and have it go through the other ML system.
Basically chaining ML systems together.
As DaveWh said, that is the holy grail. At least if we can do it at the individual level. We are definitely not there today, but it’s where we’re trying to go.
Thanks for clarifying Nate.
Exciting times ahead for sure!
“But Nate, our arguments don’t make sense unless we use a high-volume Sweet Spot strawman. Let’s not bring facts into it and mess everything up.”
In all seriousness, I’m surprised that the SSB high volume plan use is as high as 7%, given how much y’all recommend against it on the podcast.
I think SSB high volume has been a bit of a badge of honor thing. “Can you take the extreme load? You must be a really good cyclist!”
When the fact is, most people don’t need that load and for most people it will do more harm than good.
IE if I did Amber’s pro plan it would do more harm than good. That doesn’t mean it was bad for Amber.
I’ve done SSB HV three times in the past year, not sure if that makes me good or something else lol
This is a little side-tracked. My suggestion is to simply stop calling ramp test result - or any other indirect estimate of FTP - “FTP”. Maybe I get too hung up on precision in language, since I spend a lot of time trying to clearly explain complicated things during my day job. But it seems like you have to answer more questions than you should if you just called it what it actually is (which as I said in other posts, is a great concept).
Anyways, even though it doesn’t matter, I like to think about stuff. So…
It seems we both agree that Ramp test estimates FTP. Assuming a normal distribution, 16% of your users are going to be 1 standard deviation below that estimate. Holding 30 min even a percent or two above threshold is very very hard for most people.
Is 16% “very large”? I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. I’ll refine my statement to I’m confident it is a “nontrivial number”.
A quick scan of both Lola and Dunderberg -1 show a regular number of possible struggle/fails on those workouts. Only you know if they recently took a ramp, and even then it doesn’t mean they did struggle/fail because the ramp was a bad estimate (i.e., other factors that violate assumptions of the 30 min test). But it certainly suggests I’m not crazy.
Would certainly enjoy to see a bunch of people take a ramp and then take a 30 min TT after a rest day. What percent you think can complete that based on your data?
I’m not sure because we don’t have that direct use case in a large dataset.
But…we’re in agreement. It’s a “range” right now, and we need to do something to make sure it’s more accurate for more people.
Thus, we have progressions.
The other neat thing is this changes in between tests, and it’s not going to change at the same rate for everyone. IE new cyclists will improve faster than an elite cyclist. The progression system should understand this and adjust.
Agree on all that.
I think what I said was misinterpreted by several that I was suggesting finding actual FTP, whatever that concept even is, is important. I don’t think that at all. Rather you have arrived at a much better methodology for gaining fitness that is going to be a lot more productive and positively reinforcing.
I’m excited.
I am still on the fence…
Doing 2 interval sessions a week (might skip the 3th longer from the low volume plan) and fill in the rest with endurance outdoor rides. I wonder if AI is useful in my case.
Right, in this example 80% of the workouts are at an IF of .82 to .9 and 20% at .63
Nothing to do with SS-focused 
And whilst I admit that I want to provoke, I’ll also admit that I felt great and punchy and all that during this plan myself … (burnt out during spbLV though, but that was due to me not knowing how to adapt a plan by that time, so you could say my own fault, which should be fixed with AT!)
If the two that you do involve different energy systems, then it is very plausible you will have different progression levels. It is also plausible that your targets should be tweaked from those based on a ramp test.
May not make a huge difference for you, and it isn’t a trivial thing to pull off. But if practice matches the intention it would be useful.
Being on the forum for a while there seems to be huge differences of opinion as to what is Sweet Spot and what it isn’t. Posters complaining the plans have too much sweet spot, others that the plans don’t contain enough long sweet spot intervals.
i’ll be interested to see whether the new plans are renamed because I think that calling a plan Sweet Spot Base makes it easy for people to wrongly assume that its all about sweet spot when in reality it isn’t except maybe in the high volume plans.
Hopefully with AI and ML future plans will be just the recommended most effective way to utilise our available time on a bike to achieve our future goals. It feels like it really will be my plan and personal to me, my goals and previous performance. It will be exciting to see what remains when the historic training dogma is ignored and only what is effective remains.
I loving being on this journey with Trainerroad and I just wish I was 30 years younger so I could really explore my true genetic potential 
As there is no accepted definition of FTP, or how to measure it, everything is as estimate of an ildefined concept. So I agree that “ramp test result” or “RTR” is more precise.
Serious question: how would you precisely define “FTP”? And what do you consider an acceptable way to measure it?
I have this in other posts: power one can ride at in a quasi-steady state between 30-70 min. Finding it is not easy - you need to go and ride for at least 30 min at a relatively constant power and be maxed out by the end. Not many people like to do that, it takes experience to do it right, and it isn’t critical to do to set power targets or make progress.
My quibble about precision is not that we need to nail what our FTP is, it is to address statements like: “my FTP went (up, down, stayed flat)” based on a ramp test. Each of those scenarios regularly seem to lead to problems because it easily could not be a true. Actual FTP may have gone up, down, or stayed flat - but not necessarily consistently with ramp result. For example: estimated FTP goes up, they subsequently fail a threshold workout the next week and are frustrated. Another example: estimated FTP stays flat and they are frustrated, but they can ride at that number somewhere between 30 - 70 min (meaning FTP progressed up to their estimated FTP level).
The new progression levels and adaptivity is aiming to fix both issues above. But a little better messaging might alleviate some gripes and confusion I’ve seen.
If you’ve tried LV and MV then I’m sure you’re fine 
Social media, or ‘gossip’ as we used to call it. Or the Devil’s Radio, as George Harrison used to call it. 
This really gets to the point that using a single number for “FTP” doesn’t make sense. And it should be thought of as a range.
Using me (N=1): I’ve done climbs for just over 25 minutes (top of hill) at close ~111% of what I was using at the time for my “FTP”. So by your definition my “FTP” was significantly higher than what I was using. Was my “FTP” low? Probably. But I doubt I could have completed workouts using a 11% higher “FTP”.
I’d adjust that and say, we shouldn’t be trying to anchor all our workouts based on one number. There are a host of variables that affect what percent of FTP, estimated or actual, you should use for any given workout on any given day. Fundamentally, you’re trying to get close enough to cause consistent adaptation in a given energy system. Trying to nail it perfectly is most likely gonna be counter-productive.
I think it is Andrew Coggan who has a nice saying that goes something like power ranges in an energy system are descriptive, not prescriptive. That’s an important nuance.
If I understand the new TR paradigm, it is:
Step 1: Baseline fitness using a ramp test.
Step 2: Assign nominal workout progressions given an athlete’s goal
Step 3: Use a feedback system to precisely dial in the correct progression to hit consistent and sustainable adaptation
That 3rd step is a huge one and the hardest to get right, but I think they’ve got a great plan.
This is super-exciting. I doubt many human coaches can consistently accomplish this, if any at all.