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.
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.
Agree you can’t use the workout (whole workout) IF to tell you anything, nearly 30 minutes with power under 50% of RTR. Even the interval IF doesn’t tell you the training zone, although the example shown probably isn’t a VO2max session (for most?)
It was indeed meant to be a joke … I fall into the trap of trying to be funny on the internet and failing over and over again.
It was more meant like: Be happy of “just” being “accused” of too much sweetspot when you bring up an example which contains 4x intensity (3xVo2max and 1x ss) and 1 easy ride on a 5day plan.
I used TrainNow for the first day and it was SPOT ON with the intensity and duration. Well, I picked the duration. In the last 2 years I have never been able to complete the Sweet Spot workout “Phoenix +2” I always fail somewhere between 43-51 minutes. Once again, my Build cycle had it on my training plan for today. Instead, I used TrainNow and was suggested “Carson +2” which is very similar to Phoenix except that it breaks up the 90 minutes with 2 minutes rests. And whatddya know? A challenging, sweaty, hard workout that I actually completed. And that’s just from the first TrainnNow that I’ve picked. Can’t wait to see how predictive it continues to be,
I had a very similar experience. I really struggle with VO2max workouts (I know that’s the point, but I mean I struggle to complete them on plan at full intensity). In my rest week now, but as I flunked last week’s VO2max workout so badly, I decided to do one. I chose Ansel Adams, but TrainNow suggested Thimble - much easier. I went with the recommendation and it was just doable, so I think it got my ability spot on.
I had Ansel Adems +4 on my build block today but knowing I was not keeping up with the past couple weeks of workouts at this intensity, I swapped to Thimble +2 after seeing your comment. I can confidently say that it was a challenging workout, but if I had kept the original prescription, I would 100% not have even finished all the intervals.
don’t mind at all; Cody was great, so knowledgeable. I will post my own person thoughts on the YouTube channel hopefully later this week or next week. Good luck with your training @PusherMan !!
